Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (BWE @ Nov. 15 2007,10:55)|
|Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,03:39)|
|Quote (BWE @ Nov. 15 2007,08:54)|
|Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,01:48)|
|What did you think of the Sokal Hoax?*|
* I'm guessing this functions as a sort of litmus test. I could be wrong!
Fucking brilliant. One of the best things anyone's ever done to demonstrate the sheer retardedness of humanity. That and the real test where they ask you to shock the other guy when he gets wrong answers.
Talk about having it coming.
BTW, Have you seen this one?
I am also a fan of the Sokal hoax. I like seeing bunkum and bunkum promoters exposed. However, I certainly don't think that the clowns and clowning exposed by that excellent hoax are representative of all of the humanities, or even just all of pomo etc. There are some good ideas contained within and some decent academics. Sadly, as the Sokal hoax exposed, there are also a lot of muppets and associated muppetry.
Quis custodet ipsos custodes?
Which of course is something to do with custard.
P.S. Yes I have seen that pomo generator, or at least one much like it. It is hilarious. Satirising/parodying the occasional outgrowths of human obscurantism and pomposity is a great business! Hurrah and yoiks! Three cheers for Alan Sokal.
Are you kidding? they are representative of all of humanity let alone the humanities. Of course there are good ideas, but that doesn't stop us from being gullible, pompous, egocentric idiots to a man (or woman).
I always thought statler and waldorf watched the watchers or guarded the guards or had custody of the custodians or ate custard.
Anyway, don't misunderstand, I'm all for thinking, philosophy, science, whatever. I enjoy it, but as Horace Walpole one wrote in a letter to the Queen of Upper Austria:
"The world is a comedy to those that think and a tragedy to those that feel."
I think perhaps you misunderstand me. My bad.
I'm not defending the nuttier pomo elements (obviously) and I'm REALLY not denying the fact that, despite wits and decent ideas, Homo sapiens is more often better described as Homo ludens.
What I was implying was that:
a) Some people tend to write off aspects of good humanities and sensible humanities academics because of the lunatic or foolish fringe (or even foolish majority in some cases). I think that this is a bad idea. I didn't think you were doing this but I wanted to pre-empt a generalised humanities/pomo bashing evolving from a very justified bashing of Fuller and the ludicrous/lunatic element.
b) A theme I've found running through some "science studies" works that I find unbelievably arrogant is that they are the guards who guard the scientists (the guardians of truth perhaps). These guys have in some cases set themselves up in the (very useful) role of Caesar's slave. The see themselves as (self righteously) reminding scientists that they are merely human. A noble cause, and one I agree with, but it misses the point. Scarily enough science itself is a sufficient Caesar's slave to scientists, as anyone who's done any research knows. We are humbled by nature on such a regular basis that any additional humbling is gilding an already very humble lilly! Obviously there are instances and individuals where this is not true, these are often famous exceptions, and the loons concerned are justifyably stomped on heavily.
I think this role is vainglorious and stems from the same irrational base that (for example) certain aspects of religious persecution complexes arise, or to use a specific example, the prejudicial appeal to the "wisdom of the common man" (i.e. that in matters decided by evidence: the fallacy that Jack's as good as his master). It's another iteration of "I don't like what the evidence says, therefore the evidence is wrong because I don't like it". Many pomo/relativist screeds of the ludicrous sort have a Lefter-than-thou sanctimony (Fuller is an example of this btw) redolent of more religious ideologies. Evidence occasionally conflicts with these ideologies and WHAP we see denailsists, dogmatism, and the standard anti-Enlightenment, anti-science silliness we see in everything from homeopathy to creationism. The pomo/relativist extremes are just yet another finger on the very polydactyl hand of anti-reason.
My Latin quip was a reminder to these self-appointed pomo guards that they in turn need guarding. As Annyday points out above, the Social Text people should have revelled in the pomoposity pricking, Imperial nudity exposing brilliance of the Sokal hoax. The fact that they didn't is telling.