> 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.
Richard Dawkins doesn't have anything important to say about religion. The particulars of a field collapse if you refute the fundamental premises, yes, but people without knowledge of the particulars often operate with a curious notion of the fundamental premises as well.
I once saw a guy claim to refute Marxian economics because if you spend hours and hours making mud pies, that doesn't make them worth anything, ergo the labor theory of value is has been disproven and the whole Marxist edifice collapses, QED. That's about the level of understanding Dawkins brings to his critique of religion. Maybe it applies to Sokal and maybe not, but if he doesn't want to engage in "close reading" (to use a loaded term, and maybe he does) then probably so.