Debunking the Conventional Wisdom about
the Science Wars, Especially the Sokal Affair and its Aftermath
|
In essays posted at this site,
I use close readings of the science wars literature to debunk
the conventional wisdom about them, especially about the Sokal
affair and its aftermath. In doing this, I try to adhere to standards
of rigor comparable to those of my profession, mathematics. I
look forward to all criticism that is made in the same spirit.
Although the essays first posted
here (see below) were written to support allegations that I made
in "Reading and relativism: an introduction to the science
wars" PDF
(in After the Science Wars, Ashman & Baringer, editors, Routledge
2001), they serve equally well to support ones that I made in
a review symposium in Social Studies of Science (February 2004).
The symposium begins with my
review, "Kinder, gentler science wars," of The One
Culture? A Conversation about Science (Labinger & Collins,
editors, U. of Chicago 2001). This is followed by five replies
to the review and, finally, my replies to the replies.
The entire symposium is available
in the first eleven files below. However, because the last paragraph
of my reply to Bricmont & Sokal is marred by a publishing
error that renders it gibberish, I am also posting a prepublication
version, subtitled, "Sometimes the obvious is the enemy
of the true." Finally, I am posting, as a single PDF file,
the published version of "Replies to the replies."
| Kinder, gentler science wars: a review of The
One Culture: PDF |
Logic and the editor, Jay Labinger: PDF
Reply to Labinger:
HTML |
Scientism and philosophism, Michael Lynch: PDF
Reply to Lynch: HTML |
Understanding 'social', Peter R. Saulson: PDF
Reply to Saulson: HTML |
How do you know you've alternated? Harry Collins:
PDF
Reply to Collins: HTML |
Reply to Gabriel Stolzenberg, Jean Bricmont &
Alan Sokal: PDF
Reply to Bricmont and Sokal: HTML
Reply to Bricmont and Sokal:
Sometimes the obvious is the enemy of the true: PDF |
| Replies
to the replies: PDF |
|
|
| A physicist
experiments with scholarly discourse |
|
|
| An unphilosophical
argument |
|
|
| The hoax according
to Weinberg |
|
|
| Professor Nagel's
Fashionable Nonsense |
|
|
| The invention
of Jacques Derrida, physics faker |
|
|
|
| These are,
in order, debunkings of |
| What
the Social Text affair does and does not prove, by the physicist, Alan Sokal |
| What
the Sokal hoax ought to teach us, by the philosopher, Paul Boghossian |
| Sokal's
hoax, by the physicist, Steven
Weinberg |
| The
sleep of reason, by the philosopher, Thomas Nagel |
| Attempts
to brand Jacques Derrida a physics faker |
| An
attack on Social Text editor, Andrew Ross, by the biologist,
Paul R. Gross |
|
 |
For "A very
bad argument," my forthcoming review of Paul Boghossian's
widely acclaimed, Fear of Knowledge (Oxford 2005), the
support to be offered here will be an expansion and refinement
of the debunking, begun in the review, of Boghossian's alleged
refutation of relativism and constructivism. E.g., in the review,
I debunk his example of a belief for which it allegedly is necessary
to appeal to its truth to explain its acquisition.
Here I will go further and argue that, not only is it not an
example of such a belief, there are no such examples - not for
truth nor evidence nor rationality. The fact that Boghossian
thinks otherwise suggests that he has failed to grasp how high
a bar is posed by 'it is necessary to appeal to its truth.'
I will also debunk the passage in the epilogue, not mentioned
in the review, about whose fear of what knowledge he thinks he
is talking about in his title. |
These documents may be revised
from time to time, if only to correct mistakes. I therefore am
dating them. Finally, I also am composing a list of errata and
critical comments for the published (and, hence, unrevisable)
essays, "Reading and relativism," "Kinder, gentler
science wars" and "Replies to the replies." See
"Errata and auto-critique": PDF
My email address is gstolzen@math.bu.edu.
|
|
|
