[lbo-talk] Conversation with Derrida

[Somebody Somebody]

Doug: But as for the rest of the field of science studies, my sense from talking with Sokal was that he really doesn't know what he's talking about - for him, there's no intelligent critique of science. Truth is just obvious and self-evident. E.g., I asked him what he thought of the Frankfurt school & their critique of instrumental reason and he had no idea what I was talking about. For me, the result of his hoax was to turn me into a Judith Butler fan.

Somebody: This sounds rather like Terry Eagleton complaining that since Richard Dawkins isn't well versed in theology he can't have anything important to say about religion. Of course, his reply was that if you successfully refute the fundamental premises of a field, it's not necessary to study it's particulars. For that matter, this is the same issue with what Chris Doss has been saying about James Heartfield. 

Also, to me the issue isn't whether there is an intelligent critique of science. The more important question, frankly, is do we even need one? When it comes to applying or misapplying science, all that's required is an ethical framework to go along with the methodology. You don't need to know a thing about the Herbert Marcuse, Nazi philosophers, Karl Popper, or the Pope's latest encyclical.