> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Andy <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> the key is which reactionaries you're talking about... Sokal, it
> seems
> >> to
> >> > me, wants politics and science separated so he can take on reactionary
> >> > politics in physics - from funding to research programs to right wing
> >> > scientists - but believes this is only possible because he separates
> >> > politics and science.
> >>
> >> Where do you get any of this?
> >>
> > >From quite close readings - at the time - of his explanation/s of the
> hoax
> > and parallels between the kinds of arguments he made in those texts and
> > interviews and the arguments against constructionism by other traditional
> > lefty (and liberal) scientists... have I misremembered something? I'll
> > admit it's been a decade or more and that I've not gone back and reread
> > anything...
>
> I just don't remember anything about him suggesting basing funding on
> scientists' politics. But then I wouldn't know a constructionist from
> a ruptured spleen.
>
>
you are quite right, I was saying that Sokal might want to criticize the
highly politicized funding priorities of federal agencies and academic
institutions, not that he wanted funding to be directed based on politics...