On Nov 5, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
> oug: 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.
It's not really like that all. You needn't know theology to argue whether god exists or not. You do need to know science studies if you're engaging in a critique of science studies. There's a venerable tradition of serious criticism of instrumental reason and the capitalist corruption of science and technology. Just because Stanley Aronowitz is an idiot doesn't mean there isn't a good way to go about criticizing the orthodox scientist's view of the world.
Doug