BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Critical Theorists suckered by science hoax

  
 
grant
19:07 / 12.06.02
The Social Text hoax: a scientist spoofs the liberal arts academy.

In the late 90s, Alan D. Sokal wrote a fake article on Quantum Gravity, Relativity and Post-structuralism for the journal Social Text.

For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American academic humanities. But I'm a mere physicist: if I find myself unable to make head or tail of jouissanceand différance, perhaps that just reflects my own inadequacy.
So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies -- whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross -- publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?
The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Interested readers can find my article, ``Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,'' in the Spring/Summer 1996 issue of Social Text. It appears in a special number of the magazine devoted to the ``Science Wars.''

and

The fundamental silliness of my article lies, however, not in its numerous solecisms but in the dubiousness of its central thesis and of the ``reasoning'' adduced to support it. Basically, I claim that quantum gravity -- the still-speculative theory of space and time on scales of a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter -- has profound political implications (which, of course, are ``progressive''). In support of this improbable proposition, I proceed as follows: First, I quote some controversial philosophical pronouncements of Heisenberg and Bohr, and assert (without argument) that quantum physics is profoundly consonant with ``postmodernist epistemology.'' Next, I assemble a pastiche -- Derrida and general relativity, Lacan and topology, Irigaray and quantum gravity -- held together by vague rhetoric about ``nonlinearity'', ``flux'' and ``interconnectedness.'' Finally, I jump (again without argument) to the assertion that ``postmodern science'' has abolished the concept of objective reality. Nowhere in all of this is there anything resembling a logical sequence of thought; one finds only citations of authority, plays on words, strained analogies, and bald assertions.

I'd advise reading the link to get a better idea about what went on.

There's also a further explanation here, in this lecture from Economic and Political Weekly (a pdf file). My question is, could this scientist have been right without realizing it?

He essentially says he *was * correct, in a Theory sense, and he says that's a big problem, since the progressive political left has traditionally been on the side of science against obscurantism - but appears now to value obscurantism over reason. That argument seems rather persuasive to me... is he onto something here?

Excerpted from the lecture link: Rather, my goal is to defend what one might call a scientific worldview - defined broadly as a respect …for reasoned argument over wishful thinking, superstition and demagoguery. And my motives for trying to defend these old-fashioned ideas are basically political. I identify politically… with the Left, understood broadly as the political current that denounces the injustices and inequalities of capitalist society…And I’m worried about trends in the American Left – particularly in academia – that… divert us from the task….
 
 
Thjatsi
20:14 / 12.06.02
About two months ago, Lurid posted a link to a lot of nice articles on the science wars. This article did a really nice job of analysis, in my opinion.

Excerpt:

If his article was just a duplicitous trap, its publication will show little or nothing about pomo and Social Text. But if it was a well conceived test, then its publication may show quite a lot.

How could a submitted parody be a trap, those on the science side of the debate might derisively wonder? Suppose a post modernist wanted to show that some scientific journal was self-absorbed. He writes a piece accurately copying scientific style and argument and makes his piece far more enticing by indicating that it is coming from someone in the opposite camp, a defector to the scientists' cause. The scientists are all excited. They publish the piece. Then the author publicly proclaims that he wrote the piece as a put-on and that it is, in his opinion, worthless drivel. Everyone laughs and says, see, those scientists are blind to anything but their own beliefs. They can't even tell when they are being had. Ha ha, got ya.
 
 
grant
20:35 / 12.06.02
I think the problem with that is that quoted critique is that one major part of a scientific journal's "norms" is the presentation of data. Data can be (and occasionally is) faked, and there are mechanisms in place to deal with that.

But going the other way, as Sokal has, is more of a problem, since liberal arts relies less on data (except Norman Holland-style statistical analyses) then on inspired, insightful argument. On thoughts, not facts.

In this Afterword Sokal wrote to his piece, he explains his aims pretty well. It's quoted in the article you link to, but there's other stuff in there as well.

(Like: A lot of the blame for this state of affairs rests, I think, with the scientists. The teaching of mathematics and science is often authoritarian16; and this is antithetical not only to the principles of radical/democratic pedagogy but to the principles of science itself. No wonder most Americans can't distinguish between science and pseudoscience: their science teachers have never given them any rational grounds for doing so. (Ask an average undergraduate: Is matter composed of atoms? Yes. Why do you think so? The reader can fill in the response.) Is it then any surprise that 36% of Americans believe in telepathy, and that 47% believe in the creation account of Genesis?)

On the two sides - pomo and science - I can't help but feel there are two definitions of the word "true" (and related words, like "law") that are getting crossed or jumbled up here. Which seems to be what a lot of threads up here at Barbelith (like the "Assumptions" thread) are dealing with at the moment.

I think I missed the Science Wars thread the first time around - where does it be?
 
 
YNH
07:34 / 13.06.02
I think I missed that, too, but we've bandied Sokal about before. The real meat of Thiazi's quote lies in the excitement of the project, hoax or no, for Social Text, and the somewhat forgivable ignorance of quantum physics on the part of its editors.

By his own standards, he's wrong. There's no support structure in the paper, no reasoning. By bitch standards, he's wrong, and looks like a twart. On the other hand, science is and ever shall be subordinated to political agendas.

I titled an old final "Time as Master Signifier: framework for the instantiation of space-time qua processes." I ran bits by my roommate - finishing a masters in physics - and a couple other harder experimental science types. Simple version states that the acts of communication fuel the expansion of the universe. Funny thing is, a lot of it checks out. I could spend a lifetime tuning the details, but I won't.

Maybe the problem is less one of a priori stand-offs and more one of misguided or juvenille motivations? I mean, literary theory isn't necessarily the heart and soul of the left; but it presents a vulnerable target.

I should probably read the Assumptions thread before typing, but iff (you know, the "and only if" version) science and postmodernism appear to be on two sides, then you've likely claimed ground on one of them. It's basic science class stuff that Law is only theory that appears to apply in all cases, and we take said Laws to be true to build a model via which to comprehend the world. The mere suggestion of quantum gravity tends to destabilize the overall model we're relying on these days. And philosophers of science have been advocating, to crib from Feyerabend, epistemilogical anarchy for decades, if not most of a century.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:24 / 13.06.02
It occurs to me that this guy may have managed to write something which isn't nearly as idiotic as he thinks it is. Will read the article later - but on first examination, whilst it contains a lot of stuff I'd regard as controversial and even annoying (a desire to subordinate science to ideology) it's hardly any of it new or out of court for a journal of social theory.

Dangers of spoofing on foreign territory, perhaps.
 
 
YNH
08:41 / 13.06.02
I thought so, too, Nick, but it just doesn't read that way. The science is bad to fictional, the analogies (what he calls pastiche) are unsupported, and, as you mention, other folks have done some real work. He's just clever, like an ad, encouraging you to make the connections between, for example, Lacan and topology.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:38 / 13.06.02
The science is beyond me. Too much algebra. But in between the nonsense are bits which make sense - and encourage you to make connections. That's not to say there isn't a huge quantity of baloney in social science, but this doesn't really say much about that. What I suspect it demonstrates is that social scientists know almost as little physics as most physicists know about social science and critical theory.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:54 / 13.06.02
I've been meaning to start a thread about this for some time, but I'm glad grant has done it.

OK, first off, the usual reply to the article by Sokal's opponents is to say that it is written by someone who is an expert in their field but not in social science and critical theory. So it is dismissed as naive and, perhaps, arrogant. IMO, Sokal and Bricmont have a reasonably good grip on the philosophy of science - far better than my own, anyway. It is hard to tell from the hoax article itself but a read of the rest of Sokal's site is worthwhile. This article, in pdf, sets out a good introduction to philosophy of science. It also demonstrates that they are not nearly as clueless as they are often made out to be. But let me talk about the actual hoax article.

The article is bad in two different ways. Anyone who knows any science should spot glaring errors throughout - I don't think you need any algebra to get this Nick. Anyway, even if you don't know any science there are plenty of assertions that should raise suspicions. For instance, he essentially says that scientists cling to the "dogma" that science works and the article proceeds to claim that "quantum gravity" undermines this notion. Alarm bells? Or,

It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ``reality'', no less than social ``reality'', is at bottom a social and linguistic construct

I know what the defence of these positions is. Objectivity, measurement etc are difficult and absolute claims to the "truth" are flawed therefore everything is relative. I dunno. Apply that reasoning in a political situation or one with a strong ethical dimension. If you can stick to it, then you have no principles.

The article then goes on with pretty bad science. Some of it is merely mangled, the rest is outright lies. What does it matter?

I find it odd, if not disturbing, that some have claimed that the falsehoods and misrepresenations of science in the article are not a problem. The reason for this is that so much writing, by respected people, is just as bad in this regard. Lacan's use of topology, for instance, is garbage. Our view of science is both reverential and dismissive. Its important enough to use to support our favourite theory. Its not important to get the details, or even the gist, right. As long as some "core ideas" are preserved.


The second way that it is bad is that in terms of ideas and thoughts it is completely shallow. The arguments presented, when there are any, are a mix of non sequiturs, crude plays on words and appeals to authority. Is quoting Derrida a sufficient criterion for a good argument? Can strong claims about the abolition of objectivity be made by just using a few trendy words? Say postmodern, non linear and relativity enough, then quote Derrida, Lacan at el and there is your argument. Doesn't everyone else find this deficient?

I think that finding connections is an important thing to do. But being important doesn't mean that any connection - no matter how tenuous - is valid or even interesting.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:37 / 13.06.02
Oddly enough, I've been reading "The Sokal Hoax", a collection edited by the editors of Lingua Franca that collects the article and some responses to it. I haven't gotten too, too far in it, but here's some thoughts that haven't been brought up before:

1) Sokal absolutely refused to make any edits asked of him by the Social Text editors to tone down some rhetoric, make the science more accessible to the non-scientist, and cut down on the footnotes/scholarly apparatus. He insisted that they publish the text "as-is", and they capitulated.

2) Why did they capitulate? The essay appeared in an issue called "Science Wars", and they were keen to have someone from inside the science establishment contribute to a discussion that most mainstream scientists reflexively disparage. It was also flattering to their vanity that someone from a science background took their discipline seriously enough to be an auto-didact in it. It's not everyday that a journal like Social Text gets an article from an established physicist, and even though (as the editors claimed) Sokal's grasp of theory was "rudimentary" and that he was tackling issues that were of little importance to theorists working in science, it would enhance their reputation and profile of their project.

3) Sokal does himself a great disservice when he, in addition to using bits of theory he (and others) find incomprehensible or insupportable, includes bits on "nonsense" science (ex. Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields). In his revelation of the hoax, Sokal mocks the scientific acumen of the editors of Social Text because they failed to question him about thsi "junk science." However, it seems to me, in technical matter such as this, the editors should obviously defer to a specialist (Sokal) who is allegedly in good faith trading on his reputation that his scientific information is accurate.

4) Social Text is not a "peer reviewed" journal like most scientific publications.

5) Sokal is a self-proclaimed "leftist" whose main objective in publishing the hoax was to expose the "scientism" of what passes for an academic left. thus, this is not a battle between a conservative and "tenured radicals" but an internicene war between those on the "left".
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:47 / 14.06.02
It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ``reality'', no less than social ``reality'', is at bottom a social and linguistic construct

I know what the defence of these positions is. Objectivity, measurement etc are difficult and absolute claims to the "truth" are flawed therefore everything is relative. I dunno. Apply that reasoning in a political situation or one with a strong ethical dimension. If you can stick to it, then you have no principles.

You see, I have no problem with that quote. Social reality, along with ethics, morality, the class system, the wealth divide - these things are constructs. We made them up. Reality, of the physical sort, also seems pretty tenuous these days. If it weren't bad enough that time apparently slows down the faster you go, and therefore can be different in different places, scientists are now working on a computer of immense power at whose core would be the knowledge that some particles can hold three mutually exclusive positions at the same time.

That hasn't even scraped the surface of the unreality of our world. There is nothing you can put your hand on and say 'this is incontravertibly what it appears to be'. Reality is a social construct.

As to your fear that anyone applying that to politics will be a monster, I disagree most strongly. First, it's painfully obvious that you can readily be a monster if you think you know the truth - God knows how many martyrs and visionaries and Men Of The Side Of Light have blown pieces off the world in the last hundred years. Second, just because there's no moral absolute, that doesn't mean you can't behave in a 'good' way. We have the concept of good - whether it means 'what I would wish to happen if that were me, and whether I would deserve it' or something more complex - and we seek it. Empathy and reason are our guides, and with them we're perfectly well equipped to avoid being monsters.

It ought to be the proudest moment of human social history when we learn to make good decisions without reference to anything but ourselves.
 
 
The Natural Way
09:09 / 14.06.02
Lurid: you always seem to end up embroiled in the relativism vs absolutism debate - s'bugbear of yours, innit? Let it go man....you'll hurt yr head.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:07 / 14.06.02
Runs: You are right, but there are reasons I keep doing this. I think it is important. I'm not sure that I would call the debate relativist vs. absolutist since my only contention is that not everything is totally relative. Does that make me an absolutist? Certainly that is the way I have been responded to in the past.

Nick: OK, physical reality is a social and linguistic construct. I'm going to do a Sokal and see what that statement means.

It could mean that reality is experienced, interpreted and reported by people via social and linguistic means. So that our knowledge of reality comes through a web of language and interaction. Thats fine. This is essentially saying that human activity is conducted by humans. There is the observation that the insights we make, the ideas we consider having and the way we report them are affected by society and language. If this is the intended meaning then we can agree. There is still some notion of reality, however difficult to define, but the way we experience encompasses social factors.

However, there is a stronger interpretation that says since we can only experience reality through these filters, reality is in fact affected by them. Indeed, from this point of view it makes no sense to talk about "reality". Certainly not as distinct from our experience of it. Hmmm. Let me explain why I think this is flawed.

Now suppose we look at something like fashion. This is clearly a social construct. The "best" fashions change all the time and asking a designer for a piece of clothing gets you something different every time. What about science? Is it equally fickle?

Lets take evolution, for instance. Now the standard Darwinian model is the one pushed by most scientists. Other groups, mainly christians, claim that this is a symptom of belief. So we have two groups, making different truth claims about the world. That does seem to support the contention that reality is social. There is only culture that separates the two positions, right?

OK. What about GM foods. Lots of green activists say that there haven't been sufficient tests to demonstrate the safety of GMOs. Big biotech companies disagree. Again, a difference based on culture. Is the only way to decide on the issue simply a choice of ideology? If I want to be green I opt against GMO's since that will form my social and linguistic backdrop. If I want to be a good capitalist, I endorse them. You can run the same argument about any science issue that affects the world.

If reality is a social and linguistic construct then deciding the nature of reality is a matter of taste. You can't simply "go and see it", since the separation between experience and actuality has dissolved. If I do an experiment, is the result dependent on my culture and my language? If not, why not?

As to how this applies to politics. I never said that absolutism or total certainty is the path to a moral high ground. I never mentioned moral absolutism - it is interesting that I am repeatedly ascribed this position because I state that reality is not entirely relative.

I said that you cannot have principles and believe that everything is relative. Look at the world. I believe that global warming is a danger. The US, apparently, does not. If all is relative, then we just have competing ideologies. There is no "real" situation to speak of.

I claim that there are human rights abuses by Israel in the Middle East. Is that assertion simply an extension of my political views? There is no "evidence", only conviction. I don't understand how to use my empathy and reason if I cannot refer to events taking place in the world independently of my thought constructs.

You say that the "wealth divide" is a social and liguistic structure. Hmmm. What wealth divide? In my culture there is no such thing. Its only lefties like you who create these objects as grist for the political mill...
 
 
grant
13:28 / 14.06.02
I'm suspecting that science is a special case of reality, like Newtonian physics is a special case of physics. The underpinnings of both are irrational and mysterious, but within the system (observable reality) they work just fine.
It's the connections between that irrationality (postmodernism or the quantum world) and the rational (scientific empiricism or Newtonian physical world) that seems to be the problem.
Since the same words ("real" and "true" and "essential") mean different things in each realm.

I'm still working on this one, though.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:02 / 15.06.02
Lurid:

You're talking about reality as something perceived through filters. What I'm saying to you is that the possibility apparently exists that there is no solid 'reality' to be filtered; that our filters and judgements and decisions may create what we live in, not merely codify it for us. It's an old and now rather cliched point, but the nature of the world described in quantum mechanics is hardly 'real'. Check out the bomb detector. 'The bomb trick depends crucially on the idea that an unobserved photon can "be" on both sides of the central mirror at once.' Scientists use the term 'counter-intuitive' to disguise the obvious fact that this is totally bonkers. But what is more fundamental to the nature of the 'real' than that a single object cannot be in two places at one time?

Elsewhere on the same site there's a discussion of using parallel worlds to govern the outcome you want in this one. Reality, increasingly, is something we choose. I won't even go into the 'observer interpretation' which suggests that reality is something we make when we look at stuff.

Now, on any given level, there is a degree of consistency. So, Global Warming is as real as the Globe itself (whatever that means), and hitting your kids is still hitting your kids, whether they're made of DNA or silicon mush.

Politically speaking -

You said: I said that you cannot have principles and believe that everything is relative.

You can. I do. You can't claim that your 'good' derives from a universal one. But that's okay - I don't. It doesn't stop me from acting. I'm perfectly content to be responsible for my own actions and take the consequences of my interference without claiming 'it was the right thing to do morally even though the outcome was horrible'. I do what is consonant with who I am, and I strive to make that person the best person he can be. Reason and empathy. Intersubjectivity. Nothing else needed.

I claim that there are human rights abuses by Israel in the Middle East. Is that assertion simply an extension of my political views?

Yes. Does that trouble you? Human Rights are a construct. They're game rules dependent on a cultural situation. For many, they are bounded by other considerations - God's will, the security of the state, the survival of one's family.

There is no "evidence", only conviction.

Oh, there's evidence - or rather, there are data. So,

If I do an experiment, is the result dependent on my culture and my language?

Yes, in a sense - the experiment you design will be dictated by who you are. You will get the data you look for - presumably, as a good scientist (cultural artefact), you will design a test which tries to achieve something akin to objectivity (linguistic notion), so that's what you'll get - raw data (or rather, data produced by an experiment where you have striven to remove yourself from the mix). Data only become information, knowledge, and evidence through interpretation - so the results will, indeed, be governed by culture and language. Beyond that are the weirdnesses of experimental physics where looking alters the result, about which I know too little to comment.

Evidence is contingent. What you see depends on who you are.

But why is any of this a problem? Do you need to make reference to a higher order in order to act on your convictions? No. You need only accept that you are imposing your own will on the world - something we do every day - rather than acting out some imperative. Once you accept that the world is made, not received, the idea of remaking it is less remarkable.

I don't understand how to use my empathy and reason if I cannot refer to events taking place in the world independently of my thought constructs.

That's not the problem. We're in the game. What would it mean to say "it's all just sense data" and refuse to engage with the world we perceive? What, you've got something better to do? Something more real? This is the real world, whatever that is. Whether it's exactly how it looks or whether we make it up as we go along doesn't change that.

I never mentioned moral absolutism - it is interesting that I am repeatedly ascribed this position because I state that reality is not entirely relative.

Actually, you said:

Objectivity, measurement etc are difficult and absolute claims to the "truth" are flawed therefore everything is relative. I dunno.

Which seems to mean that you think that the difficulty of measuring or locating truth does not imply an absence of objective reality. Fair enough. But in combination with the second half -

Apply that reasoning in a political situation or one with a strong ethical dimension. If you can stick to it, then you have no principles.

-it appears to suggest that some kind of moral objective reality is necessary for ethical functioning.

The point of all this is that Sokal writing 'physical "reality", no less than social "reality", is at bottom a social and linguistic construct' is not of itself grounds for alarm. I would have thought it was a fairly innocuous statement, actually, by comparison with some of the things which get thrown around.
 
 
6opow
02:32 / 16.06.02
Why is that if "reality" is a social construct, then it follows that there can not be principles? Or, Lurid, why do you think that if everything is "relative," and, if you decide to hold this position strongly, then you can't have principles? I think your thinking here is cloudy!

If everything is relative, and we ourselves create the world in which we find ourselves, then aren't we generating principles through our mutual interactions? I mean, we can think of all the apparently discrete objects as quantum systems, and the entanglements of these systems help give rise to the manifestations on the world. Well, if that is the case, then we and the things we interact with are defining principles in the world. Some of these principles fall into the domain of "science" and others get placed under different domains (ethics, religion, etc.).

We can easily have no absolute claims to truth, and yet still advocate little t "truth" because that it what we have been doing all along. What is more important is to remove notions of true and false from the answers to the big questions, and instead replace TRUTH with CONVIENIENT FICTION. But again, we can not allow ourselves to come to think of convenient fiction as somehow opposed to fact. We need only recognize that some things appear "objectively true" such as that bus coming at me while I am in the cross walk, but still, it is an interwoven "quantum" structure that expresses itself through the filters that we have (filters "physical" and "mental").

It seems much more important that we stop trying to divide the world into true and false, black and white, etc., but rather, maybe we could recognize that there are only gray spaces, like the interwoven line of a fractal curve: ‘is’ and ‘is not’ give shape to the structure, but alone neither ‘is’ or ‘is not’ is definable.

So, we can interact in ways that endorse certain principles by the way we define self with respect to other.
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:33 / 16.06.02
There is a danger in imagining the "scientist" as some kind of idiot savante, brilliant at what they do but unable to appreciate philosophical complexities. One ends up with a caricature that is quite unrepresentative.

For instance, the word "rational" is often used to mean rigid, narrow minded, ordinary, unimaginative and so on. "Scientific" is then used to mean a particular kind of "empirical rational" inquiry. My feeling is that "empirical" is taken to be "shallow observations requiring no insight".

It goes without saying that I don't ascribe these negative attributes to rationality, empiricism or science. It is an amusing irony that the dullard scientist is often challenged to try to encompass the "irrationality" of relativity or quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics contradicts the notion of real only if one takes a naive, simplistic view of reality. I don't take such a shallow position and neither do scientists. The world is odd, we have imperfect knowledge of it, and our ideas about it change. But the most striking thing about quantum mechanics is that it offers predictions which are verified to an astonishing degree of accuracy and has many applications in the "consistent levels" and the "objective". If one really believes it to be so "irrational" and "unpredictable" then one consequence is that you believe nuclear bombs to be a fiction in their reliable destructive power. I am assuming, without justification, that we accept empirically tested statements and rational deductions about them. That is, of course, unwarranted given the nature of the discussion.

No doubt it could be said that science is all self fullfilling belief systems. That the success of science is simply a fairy story that we have decided to believe in and if tomorrow we stopped believing in it, planes would drop out of the sky. Of course, few people believe that. What I don't understand how one can believe reality is entirely constructed and that, for instance, progress is made in science. We simply believe more advanced knowledge for ourselves?

I am happy to accept that there is no a priori reason to believe that anything exists. I am also happy to concede that, a priori, there is no reason to believe that any portion of objectivity is to be found. We could all be in the Matrix being manipulated by machines who sometimes give a semblance of "consistency". It is then perfectly reasonable to dismiss any action or observation as implanted. Hmmm. Reminds me a bit of that pipe bomber who wanted to "awaken people from reality".

For me, reality is a convenient label which probably weakly corresponds to Nick's levels of consistency. I have no reason to distinguish reality from an appearance of reality, as the effect is mostly the same. So to say that Global warming is as real as the Globe is the kind of point I am trying to push. If one says that everything is relative then one's belief in global warming is simply an extension of belief. There is certainly a case for saying it is a socially constructed concept, introduced by scientists with a green agenda. Therefore, if a person is not a scientist or doesn't have a green agenda, then global warming is not real for them? In fact, meteorology is on much more shaky ground than QM when it comes to predictability so a disbelief in Global warming is perfectly reasonable there is a case for it being more "irrational" than QM. Here, evidence, data, cause and effect and rational argument are irrelevant since they are also socially constructed. Certainly there are those who occasionally hold to this view.

This is what I mean about relativity undermining morality. Not that there needs to be some overarching moral code but that there need to be "levels of consistency" or objectivity that NIck and GDG talk about. I'd like to point out that saying there are levels of consistency or objectivity is a major qualification to the notion that reality is entirely constructed.
Doubtless people will disagree, but I think the former is a much stronger statement without the qualification. The arguments used by its defenders, in either form tend to apply to all statements about the world - not just those which aren't "objective".

To put it another way. Why is the bus objective if everything is relative? What does objective mean? Why are there levels of consistency? And what are they?

Or to go back to my human rights example, which I failed to explain. What I meant was that once one has decided on what may constitute human rights, via the UN or some other body, then one should be able to decide, in principle, whether they are being upheld. Of course, this is difficult and there are problems with the "filters" I talked about above. But I'd say it is possible to present the case and try to convince someone of a decision based on the data - this belief of mine is socially constructed, naturally. But the abusers of human rights usually claim that any data gathered is invalid because of bias.

Of course, the desire to uphold human rights is constructed as is any particular expression of them. A body like the UN which may decide upon them is also constructed. Does this mean that we need not try to collect data? That we just decide whether or not we approve of a nation?

Let me try to explain me what my concerns are - clearly I have not communicated well since I seem to be accused of asserting a quasi-religious and dogmatic morality. If you take someone like Noam Chomsky, you find a person who has a strong set of beliefs - entirely constructed. He then tries to justify these beliefs by collecting and interpreting data - all through the filters I talked about earlier. I've heard people who are politically sympathetic say that he relies to much on "facts". His critics usually say he is a rabid anti-american and so his "evidence" isn't worth the paper it is written on. IMO, these are manifestations of the assertion that everything is relative. There is no point using "data" to justify beliefs since it is superfluous. Only agreement or dissent matters.

I could go on with examples, but its clear that when I say "reality is not entirely relative" people are reading "morality is not entirely relative". Its true that I think the first statement has moral consequences but it is not, by itself, a moral statement. I'd probably disagree with the second statement.

I am not trying to say that things are black or white. I am trying to say that there are different shades of grey.
 
 
alas
17:03 / 17.12.05
Not sure if anyone else is interested in reviving this old thread, but I thought of the Sokal hoax again today when I read this quotation in an editorial by the NYTimes today The Collapsing Claims on Cloning:

The debacle is a reminder that science depends heavily on the honesty of its practitioners. Deliberate fabrication, if that's what this was, can be devilishly difficult to detect. Even the expert referees and editors at Science failed to detect the problems with the paper. The discrepancies in photos and other data were largely brought to light by young Korean scientists and crusading Korean journalists, a heartening indication that science and journalism in South Korea are vigorous and independent despite this huge black mark.

I think that's the thing that is the core of the old Sokal hoax: Admittedly, the levels of scientific literacy are probably not what they should be on the humanities side of the academy, but (ironically) even post-modern theorists depend on, expect a kind of "sincerity" from the people they work with and publish. Within the academy there's a deference to authority that can interfere with employing agreed upon (yes, culturally constructed but USEFUL) frameworks for the interpretation of evidence and judging the claims of others.

I hope that makes sense. Thoughts?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
21:04 / 18.12.05
I don't think the two have much in common really. The cloning thing is really just an example of one scientist lying and several others failing to pick it up, which is pretty common in science but always gets found out via peer review etc. Sokal's hoax wasn't really 'about' science so much as it was intended to expose the 'decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American academic humanities' -that is the Postmodernist position, it's irrationality ('reality as a social construct'), tendancy to dazzle readers into submission with meaningless psuedo-scientific terms and general self-satisfiedness. The reaction was particularly telling in a toys-out-of-the-pram way; Derrida dismissed it as 'pas serieax', some theorists sympathetic to Social Text claimed that 'Sokal's parody was nothing of the sort, and that his admission represented a change of heart, or a folding of his intellectual resolve'. (also see Nick and Thjatsi's posts above)
 
  
Add Your Reply