When someone (any one) starts talking about pseudo-science you immediately know that they have not really done their homework, and are pushing an ideological barrow in the culture wars shouting matches.

Why not check out the thoroughly postmodern understanding of scientism, its limitations, and the anti-"culture" created in its image via these related references.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science.aspx

http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/reductionism.html

This essay re scientism and the "culture" of death

http://www.aboutadidam.org/newsletters/toc-february2004.html

Plus a set of essays which give a unique understanding of both modernism and postmodernism

http://www.adidaupclose.org/FAQs/postmodernism2.html

And of course on the REAL politics of survival--a very sobering assessment of the "culture" created in the image of scientism

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/reality-humanity.html

Plus another understanding of modernism/postmodernism and art via this reference by a professor of surgery.

http://www.artandphysics.com

The easy way to prove a point (if any point exists) is to start by defining whatever it is that you wish to destroy in a way that best suits your weapons of mass destruction.
My understanding of the meaning of post modernism (coming from an architectural background) is 'what came after Modernism, (International Style)' That is what 'post' means in this context.
The Modernist movement was Communist in essence. It breed the ridiculous Architectural theory that if everywhere in the world was the same there would be no need for envy and wars would cease. Hence the alternative name of 'The International Style.'
On this basis Postmodernism was a movement against the leftist modernist movement that wanted to reduce everything to drab sameness.
Whilst Post modernism means many things to many people it remains everything that came after the modernist movement. Postmodernism is beyond definition other than it came after modernism.
Pseudoscience, which I think means in this context masquerading as science, existed long before the end of modernism and will go on long after the current fashion of symbolism that replaced postmodernism long ago.
I resisted the temptation of adding my own definition of Pseudo Intelectutral to this post

Daviy, you should not have resisted.

Daniel, you asked the question << Is there any relationship between postmodernism and pseudoscience? >>, then you did a pretty good job on answering it yourself.

The only room you left for a response was from postmodernism, was that deliberate? Not only are you a heretic, you’re such a tease, tish tish.

In my view, any link is consequential rather than being direct. I like the use of a continuum; it suits my rather mechanical thinking.

The “science to pseudo-science” continuum you describe is one of the targets of postmodernism because it has no answer to that continuum. Postmodernist deconstruction attempts to bend or distort that continuum to change the perception. It also attempts to cut the continuum into smaller segments in order that each remaining segment can be viewed as an entity in itself, thus each segment can be “re-presented” in isolation.

I was struggling to provide and example of this process until I saw Ho Hum’s post. This is a perfect example of this thought process at work. Change the playing field by distortion and then proceed to chop it into as many pieces as possible. I counted six “cuts” with each segment attacked separately.

You can post any topic you like as a continuum and I guarantee you it will be subjected to the same process by postmodernism.

Postmodernisms great weakness of course, is its predictability and repetition.

It should be interesting to watch this thread develop.

Good one, thank

Daviy,
you ought to throw out your reference books, as you don't appear to have the faintist idea of Modernism or its post.
Indeed "postmodernism" is a very broad brush, just as the article tries indiscriminately to comprehend a diverse field and intelligentsia. Surely every discipline is infiltrated by a few frauds and incompetents, but that does not render the whole field nonsense. Having read a bit of Lacan myself, I would testify that apart from the prose being wilfully dense, his ideas at least compel consideration. Lacan's critique of the "symbolic order", for instance, as a way of modelling Kristeva's (not "Kristova") "intertext", makes a lot of sense.
It's interesting that the author here is an economist. I'm not familiar with his ideas, but might he belong to the same liberal rationalist camp Ditchkins belong to? I agree with Ho Hum.
Indeed the most risible inference in this defence of the Enlightenment is the notion that liberal rationalism is leading us "progressively" to a better future. In fact rampant, undirected and ethically untrammelled scientism is leading us and the planet to unreality and destruction. To note this "reality" is not to "abandon rationality", it's to impose reason upon rationalism.
One thing I do agree with is that postmodernism has led to the "enervation of the political left"--they have deconstructed even their own agency in the world, but does this author imply that liberal-rationalism has the least affiliation with the left? The left is traditionally a materialism and has nothing to do with postmodernism (a pathology rather than a politics) or pseudo-science, which are distractions from the here and now, just as the technological paradigm we occupy is a fantastic diversion from the real human condition that. I'm an atheist and sceptic in all things, including scientistic triumphalism.
I wish I had time for a more comprehensive retort. Maybe later.

Perhaps not just a continuum from left to right, but a vertical continuum from past- to future-oriented ? Thus, the anti-Enlightenment Romantics and Post-moderns, and much of the 'Left', could be categorised as part of that retreat back to the past, where all was better than now ? The problem then is to ascertain whether they are on the Left of this Past Quadrant, or on its Right ?

In my view, a genuine Left must be future-oriented, and not some tarted-up yearning for the supposed innocence and simplicities of the past, even of hunter-gatherer society. Strange, call me naive but I always think of science and the search for the truth and for the most comprehensive understanding of reality, incredibly hard-fought battles, as both Left and Future-oriented, with some strange bedfellows of course.

So much of what passes for Left these days seems to represent a retreat from the present, from modernity, from modernism,and yes, something of a cult of death. Perhaps this is just the usual schadenfreude about the perennially imminent collapse of capitalism (that whore, whose new tricks never fail to amaze) but on the other hand, perhaps past- and death-oriented individuals are attracted to the pseudo-left and to post-modernism ? Do Goths vote 'Left' these days ? Is euthanasia developing into a 'Left' issue ?

Marx would spin in his grave.

>> When someone (any one) starts talking about pseudo-science
>> you immediately know that they have not really done their homework,

>> Why not check out the thoroughly postmodern understanding of scientism

i'm confused. one can value science and deplore the attacks on science with about being a scientism-ist. i'd say the article is weird, since there are as many politically right attacks on science as academic left attacks.

but there have been plenty of academic left attacks on science. are people here suggesting otherwise, or are they condoning these attacks?

I have to admit I did not know about “Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture” apparently a sequel to Sokal and Brickmont’s “Fashionable Nonsense” (c.f. also my http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#82275).

So I am grateful to the author in spite of his somewhat peculiar characterisation of (all?) religion as pseudo-science. Of course, religion can play the role of pseudo-science in the minds of people who do not have a good understanding of their religion, the same as science can play the role of kind of pseudo-religion in the minds of people who have a naive or outdated understanding of (philosophy of) science.

It indeed seems like the chapter “Religion, Politics and Survival” is the most interesting since - judging from the contents - the rest is probably only an elaboration of “Fashionable Nonsense”. As to their views on religion (that in “Fashionable Nonsense” they were wise enough not to make explicit), I just hope they do not suffer from a similar naive and distorted understanding of basic concepts, as do those they criticise about their understnding of mathematics, physics and philosophy of science.

Hopefully I shall be wiser next week after I get a copy of the book from amazon.de.

Sokal’s denouncement of abusers of scientific terminology, and criticism of “epistemic relativism”, has found sympathisers among scientists - and supporters of science-informed world-views - whether atheist or “theist”, whether from the political left or political right.

Sokal/Bricmont had forerunners, two academics seen as belonging to the political right (Gross Paul R. and Levitt Norman, Higher Superstition, John Hopkins UP, 1994). Probably because of this, Sokal explicitly said he wanted to show with his initiative that science’s “quest for truth” can be defended not only by scientists with “rightist”, but also those with “leftist” political sympathies, as irrelevant as this political distinction is for the subject matter of their concern. And I would add that in this defense of science’s objectivity, it is also irrelevant whether one interprets its findings as an atheist or a “theist”.

Why is our OLO so interested in side issues when we just had Hillary Clinton pretty well saying she was sorry for offending Netanyahu over putting him in his proper political place over further intrusions into Arab lands, the answer just a further notice of more Israeli housing into Nerve Yaakova.

Certainly Netanyahu can easy play Hillary for a sucker, old academics remembering when the pretty lady was sometimes termed Silly Hillary.

Looks like right now it is Obama the US President being the sucker, with Hillary suddenly regarding America's deep ties with Israel as the most important.

Could say that if OLO cannot suggest some sensible answers to the above, reckon for old academic historians contributing to OLO is just a waste of time.

That would be a very good brief summary of a description of Post Modernism and the intellectually inept Left.

The theory of there are no truths fits the simpletons agendas as there is not any need to know anything that may have any relevant fact ; - in Post Modern Deconstructionism , there are no fact or truth ; - Post Modern Deridder -

And promotes the sociology study of science , and not science – after all , in Post modernism , science cannot exist – only consensus and Ideas that amount to junk science that peddles the barrow of the proletariat intention of Regressive politics and deconstruction of civil society;-

Associated contention of stating that; “We control the sciences and the Metaphysics Comrade “-
So Pig poo is now the gold of trade; Post modernism deconstruction sure has some Psychopathic psychosis attached to. It invents the untruth .

Welcome back to the fray, Bushbasher. Pseudo-science (astrology etc.), in the sense the author lampoons is, I think, beneath the notice of any school of serious thought, though when it comprehends speculative cogitation it commits the spurious sin of deviation from orthodoxy. It so happens I've been reading Herbert Marcuse today and he says (said) that strict empiricism threatens to kill off Reason. Reason, with a capital R, is often an intangible speculative/dialectical process that goes beyond the limitations of purely evidence-based, fact-orientated positivism. Of course such speculation, or "negative dialectics", properly stops short of formulating a belief system, but it is mightily productive of new directions. Are these new directions deviations from the one true path--scientific method (hallowed be thy name)--or can they suggest new paradigms? Or do they merely constitute a new language game, currently unfashionable?
So, George, I too shall procure a copy (though God knows if I'll get a chance to read it) of the new book. I confess I'm irritated by the cock-suredness of positivism. It can throw out its chest all it likes over its marvelous new toys, but where is its code of ethics, its vision of the future? I'm even more disgusted with its irresponsible, chameleon-like apoliticism.
Bushbred, are you on the right thread?
All, you're clearly with Daviy; sorry, I don't get it, can you dumb it down?

Here is an excerpt; the book is very revealing- Any , or anyone who adopts Karl Marx as a source of Intellectual sustenance - well, they deserves the pig poo for brains award.

• Francois Debrix (1999). Specters of Postmodernism: Derrida's Marx, the New International and the Return of Situationism.

Philosophy and Social Criticism 25 (1).
In Specters of Marx, Derrida proposes a return to the spirit of Marxism as a way of dealing with the 'repoliticization' of contemporary realities.

I suggest that Derrida's rediscovery of Marx allows one to map out what I call the end(s) of postmodernism, that is to say, the point(s) where the cultural free-play characteristic of the postmodern mood is confronted with renewed questions of politics, ideology and technology. Through a micro-reading of Derrida's text, two possible end(s) of postmodernism are identified.

One is a 'retro-(post)modernist' discourse which turns liberal and provides the vision of a 'New International' as an end result. The other is a '(post)-postmodern' approach which finds a way of tackling politics and ideology by rediscovering a mode of situationist engagement.

By investigating the 'specters' of postmodernism through Derrida's recent work, this paper contributes to the debate over what type of theoretical formations may emerge after postmodernism. Key Words: culture • deconstruction • Derrida • détournement • ideology • Marx • the New International • postmodernism • situationism.

More here
http://www.ontruth.com/derrida.html

Squeers,
I am glad you are back, since you are one of the atheists on this OLO I think I can communicate with as well as learn from.

You again mention Lacan, so when you acquire the new book make sure to check what they write about his abuse of mathematics, although there is no separate chapter devoted to him as in “Fashionable Nonsense”. Since I didn’t (and don’t) know much about Lacan I thought these were just some occasional escapades that Sokal/Bricmont quote. Now I read (http://www.egs.edu/media/library-of-philosophy/jacques-lacan/biography/) that “Lacan strived to create a more precise mathematically based theory in the last stage of his career. His "meta-theory" of psychoanalysis uses mathematics …”. Well, my understanding of “symbolic order” is probably as poor as Lacan’s understanding of topology, but I would not use that term to support my views. Believe me, a mathematician reads things on http://nosubject.com/Mathematics like an astronomer would read a webpage dedicated to astrology.

On the other hand, I can understand your irritation with “the cock-suredness of positivism”, however, if by “its marvelous new toys” you mean new technology, they are achievements of science, not of a particular philosophy. I think in this context positivism is the more classical term for scientism, where one has to distinguish between its epistemological and ontological varieties (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176&page=0#165070). Do you agree with this distinction? One can reject “epistemological relativism” that Sokal/Bricmont argue against without subscribing to the closed-outlook epistemological (or even ontological) scientism.

Also, I do not understand what you understand by being “disgusted with its irresponsible, chameleon-like apoliticism”: how can a philosophy of (natural) science be responsible or political? Of course, a scientist can/should have these adjectives when putting his/her findings in practice but perhaps not when pondering the epistemological implications of his/her findings.

george, i have no doubt that i'm one of the less favoured atheists for you, but on this thread i think we'll be in very strong agreement. (though i'll probably still phrase it differently). i certainly agree with you that religion need not be pseudoscience, and i also very much liked the gross-levitt book, and the sokal-bricmont book.

for what it's worth, the term "pseudoscience" seems unfortunately misleading. i'd say what sokal/bricmont/gross/levitt are attacking is antiscientific thought rather than pseudoscientific thought.

squeers, i guess i wasn't aware i'd been anywhere. though, graham is pissed off enough at my being pissed off with him that i think my resigning/suspension from OLO is imminent. (the thought keeps me awake at night, sometimes for whole seconds at a time).

i'm wary of your comments similarly to what george expressed. again, one can appreciate the power of science and the scientific method, and even to say scientific truth has a special and probably unique solidity, without engaging in scientism. but the counterattacks on this thread seem to be attacking scientism much more than science.

Here is an essay that may help in explaining it in a brief summary - many years have lapsed, and many Syntheses have mutated – The fact that needs to be observed in that the origins of New age Occultism is one of , but of the same origins ; The variations are abundant , so it seems difficult to separate and Identify individual Occult Ideology ;

- The transition is by Language and invented words - and ridicules philosophical notions of grandeur and a simple Psychological tactic aimed to polarize peoples thoughts based on the Absolution of a grand Lie.

That means; you know it is a Lie, and so do the persons proselytising such a lie; But they say it, and everyone else is Gob smacked at hearing it, and be it by any methodology to refute it has been removed. So the Grand Lie is now the Grand Truth.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/96/

All,
I can't comment much on your "pig poo", except to say its an apt metaphor for your command of the topic. I have yet to see any dirt on Derrida substantiated--indeed, very few people conduct the kind of "micro" reading that he does.
Bushbasher,
it'd be a shame for OLO to lose your rough but acute reasoning.
And thank you, George, it's mutual.
But to the topic, though it's hard to decoct such complex issues into pure pith (rather than pig poo).
Let's forget the modern sceptics for a minute; Hume was more radical, and more original, than any of them. Modern empiricism and natural science begin with Descartes (and continue to this day), who absurdly posited the cogito as a priori. Hume trumped Locke and Berkeley by acknowledging that "all" the "objective" sciences are no more than fictions. Even mathematical concepts, according to Hume, are fictions and "can easily be explained psychologically through the lawfulness of the associations and the relations between ideas". Hume radicalised Cartesian faith in the cogito and, by association all the rational cogitations of science that proceeded from it. Dogmatic objectivism has been cast in doubt ever since (though you wouldn't know it). It was the transcendental tradition, that Kant instituted, that tried to repair the damage, but it is based on metaphysics, on hidden accomplishments of mind that transcend merely sensory imput. This has never been substantiated and science is still practiced under the blind assumption that its data is correct.
As you know, George, I have very little math, but apart from Lacan being something of a magpie, even using math for his bricolage, my (limited) understanding is that he more uses its symbols. But I don't want to defend him; he argues that the Self is a pure construct of the symbolic order and I disagree; I prefer to see it (the Symbolic Order) as ideology that can be transcended.
In any event, poststructuralists are firmly in the sceptical Humean tradition, while positivism is yet to properly examine its credentials.
Do numbers hold sway above the flux for you, George?

George:
"how can a philosophy of (natural) science be responsible or political? Of course, a scientist can/should have these adjectives when putting his/her findings in practice but perhaps not when pondering the epistemological implications of his/her findings".

Scientific method is of course unaffiliated with any political/philosophical/ethical institution, and this is what I'm critical of. Scientific innovation is an end in itself rather than necessarily serving humanity's best interests. Yet it "is" opportunistic, though possibly not in a deliberate sense (this is an interesting question, whether scientific advance, riding on the back of often iniquitous human aspirations--nuclear weapons, gas chambers etc. is culpable). Though in the sense that pure science will collaborate (indifferently) with any ideology, government or megalomania (which is what I meant by "chameleon-like"), it is "irresponsible" by default.
Science produces ever more creature comforts and all manner of technologies simply because that's what it does for as long as the fuel holds out; it uses whatever resources, materials or data is available to feed an insatiable, indeed mindless, drive.
This is Enlightenment technology, but is it doing us any good? Yes it keeps us entertained, palliated and alive longer, but are we happier or more fulfilled thanks to the achievements of science--such that we may dispense with questions of ultimate meaning and ethics? Do such things cease to be important in our technocratic age? Are we to be endlessly entertained by baubles and banish thoughts of our mortality?
Are positivism and scientific advance ontologically and, arguably more important, "ecologically" sustainable. The answer to the latter seems a resounding no! Science, working with capital, has facilitated unsustainable population growth and infrastructure, as well as unconscionable human inequality and unethical exploitation of all other fauna and flora. Put another way, it combusts and extinguishes life with complete equanimity, having no truck with "meaning", which does not compute.
Speaking only for ourselves, Techne also alienates humanity from the real conditions of life. This is arguably part of the human condition, yet technology has added many layers between us and the (Lacan's) "Real".

Could say some of the questions and suggestions in the above do naturally interest us old historians, but still reckon they are a waste of time in today's troubled world.

Not too good for the future when us going on 90 year old's have to steer the minds of the young one's.

Cheers, Bushbred, Buntine, WA.

I understand that you may well be brain dead Squeers?

Please Bushbread ; be at ease , you can only borrow something if it exists ; Obviously Squeers intelligence does not , so there is no guilt to bare;
You may think I am being hard , but enough is emough; They can rot in the nest they creat. End of mission.

Squeers,
Did I understrand you properly that you see yourself as a “poststructuralist firmly in the sceptical Humean tradition”?

I am not familiar with Hume’s ideas about mathematics except that in the meantime e.g. non-Euclidean geometry, Cantor and Gödel dramatically changed the way mathematics is understood. My (and others’) opinion, expressed here a couple of times, is that mathematical entities are BOTH constructed AND discovered.

>>Dogmatic objectivism has been cast in doubt ever since (though you wouldn't know it).<<
“Dogmatic” is usually used pejoratively, and concerning what I “would know”, let me repeat what I wrote to you not so long ago:

“One things is to believe there is an objective (physical) reality as the source of our sensual perceptions, an objective reality reflected in scientific theories trying to explain it, and another thing is to believe that one can COMPLETELY know … this reality (c.f. Hawkins’ aim at a “theory of everything” that will “know the mind of God”, which he later retracted). My belief is of the first kind, hence scientific truth has both a subjective and objective dimension. Those who believe to KNOW this reality neglect (or reject) the subjective dimension of truth - you might call them “objectivists” if you like - whereas post-modernists sound to me as neglecting (or rejecting) the objective dimension of truth.“ (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445&page=0#82573).

I am not a philosopher, but I think Kant did not “repair the damage” but brought back the subjective-objective balance. Of course, the scientist’s belief in an objective - independent of the observer (e.g. in physics) - source of the phenomena he/she tries to explain and against which he/she checks the adequacy of his/her theories is blind in the sense that the existence or not of such objective reality is not a scientific but a metaphysical question. (ctd)

(ctd) Let me repeat, to assume that there is that objective reality does not contradict the belief that what we can know about it is subjective, i.e. determined and limited by our human perspective (or perspectives). The epistemic polarity of construction/discovery that I referred to in connection with mathematics can be applied also to scientific theories (and perhaps also in the context of religion), although the “discovery” part refers to two (three) completely different “objective realities”.

>>Do numbers hold sway above the flux for you, George?<<
I don’t understand. Do you mean to ask whether the concept of natural numbers is independent of history or what?

As for Lacan, he explicitly claims he uses mathematics (in the way physicists do), not just “symbols”. Like creationists when they claim they are doing science, not “just theology”.

I do not necessarily disagree with your last post. I just want to repeat, that I/we were talking about the philosophical (epistemological) interpretation of science’s findings about the nature of physical reality, not about the practical implications of the technological innovations that follow from them, nor about about the conditions provided by capital/politics in support of this rather than that research.

If it is true that “science, working with capital, has facilitated unsustainable population growth and infrastructure” etc, then the only remedy I can see is again only through APPLIED “science working with capital” and politics. Pure science, even more pure mathematics - concerned with our understanding of physical reality - is only indirectly involved through practical applications that might follow. You can waste money by financing useless pure research, however often it takes decades even centuries for applications to show up.: Your GPS would not be working properly without non-euclidean geometry (1830s) utilised by Einstein in his General Relativity (1915).

Bushbasher,
Yes, I myself prefer the prefix ersatz- instead of pseudo- (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#154979).

All-
Thanks for the link leading to G. A. Morrison’s ideas - some original some controversial, some both - that I could understand better than your words introducing that link.

George:
"Squeers,
Did I understrand you properly that you see yourself as a “poststructuralist firmly in the sceptical Humean tradition”?"
No, I never said I was part of any tradition and I'm not (which I've said repeatedly.
I was paraphrasing that material from a work on Husserl, including the phrase "dogmatic objectivism", which I don't think was used pejoratively since Husserl rejected psychologism as an explanation of phenomena. For myself, I do think that modern objectivism is dogmatic, yet I'm not an idealist but a (qualified) materialist, as I've also said repeatedly.
Kant would agree with your "belief" that "scientific truth has both a subjective and objective dimension", yet this illustrates the point that the starting premise is metaphysics since you can't substantiate the subjective or the objective nature of phenomena, let alone its scientific "truth". That whole paragraph you cut and pasted shows that you are a philosopher, indeed a metaphysician.
<I think Kant did not “repair the damage” but brought back the subjective-objective balance.>
I specifically said that Kant "tried" to repair the damage but that his system has never been substantiated. Moreover that what you're calling "balance" (the coin thing again) is pure metaphysics. But I see that we more or less agree on that, though you think the problem a minor one that can be remedied (practically) in the tension between the subject-object split. The implications of these issues are in fact enormous, and predicates of the whole modern philosophical tradition.
<>>Do numbers hold sway above the flux for you, George?<<
I don’t understand. Do you mean to ask whether the concept of natural numbers is independent of history or what?>
The Russell quote, that I've used before, was merely asking if you thought mathematics had real purchase in the universe. In other words I was inviting you to comment on my post. In the context, then, the "flux" is human activity/scientific reason--do numbers transcend psychologism--which you responded to.

qtd. <As for Lacan, he explicitly claims he uses mathematics (in the way physicists do), not just “symbols”. Like creationists when they claim they are doing science, not “just theology”.>
Yes, one of the links you provided said that Lacan was trying to translate his theory into math, but I can't comment except to say that I'm not a disciple of Lacan's, and to repeat that I disagree with much of what he says. Lacan was also a well-known eccentric (as was Nietzsche) and pariah, but none of this means we may dismiss his ideas entirely, nor indeed the other names the author cites in the article--which in fact offered nothing more than innuendo against them, which I'm highly sceptical of.
<I do not necessarily disagree with your last post. I just want to repeat, that I/we were talking about the philosophical (epistemological) interpretation of science’s findings about the nature of physical reality, not about the practical implications of the technological innovations that follow from them, nor about about the conditions provided by capital/politics in support of this rather than that research.>
This chastisement is a little irritating since I was responding directly to your implied question:
<Also, I do not understand what you understand by being “disgusted with its irresponsible, chameleon-like apoliticism”: how can a philosophy of (natural) science be responsible or political? Of course, a scientist can/should have these adjectives when putting his/her findings in practice but perhaps not when pondering the epistemological implications of his/her findings.>
No point responding to your last paragraph, except to say that what I said "is true", since you don't do justice the points I was making.
And this is the trouble with this pithy medium, as I say above--impossible to represent oneself accurately.

All; I'm happy to debate these issues with you if you can strive to be unprejudiced. But your posts were deliberately mocking and one can't help but respond in kind.

This article is mostly complete and utter rubbish, it's hard to understand why it would be published? It severely diminishes what's left the editorial integrity of OLO.

Squeers,
Sorry, If I upset you, believe me that was not my intention, quite the contrary.

>> I'm not an idealist but a (qualified) materialist<< (implying I indeed did not understand you properly).
Many people who are on the side of Sokal/Bricmont (and myself) in the “science wars” dispute would call themselves materialists. (As you might know, Marx-Leninists divide all philosophers into idealists and materialists, full stop. At least this is what I learned in compulsory “scientific world-view classes” at high school and university in Stalinist Czechoslovakia. For instance, Aristotle was a "materialist with idealist inconsistencies".)

If you see “dogmatic objectivity” and “psychologism” as two extremes, neither of which you subscribe to, then we are not that far apart when I stress the complementary nature of the subjective and objective dimensions of knowledge; you can call it metaphysics if you like. I certainly do not think epistemological issues and their implications are “minor”, so in this respect we also agree, as you point out. My mathematical practice only makes it for me easier to “experience” the construction/discovery duality also when reflecting on situations beyond mathematics.

I am not sure what you mean by metaphysician, but you are right that I feel more at home with philosophical questions pertaining to ontology and epistemology rather than ethics, aesthetics etc.

As to Lacan and the others whom Sokal/Bricmont expose (which, I agree, only indirectly can cast a dark shadow on their other writings), I think you might want to read the collection “The one culture?” (eds. Labinger & Collins, UCP 2001) presenting qualified opinions from BOTH sides - thus being more balanced than the book this thread is about.

I indeed believe that as an understanding of some Latin and some theology is important for the study of Medieval philosophy, so some understanding of mathematics and the way it is applied in science (physics) is important for contemporary philosophy of science.

I do not see any “chastisement” in what I wrote at the end of my last post, but if you do, it was unintentional and I apologise

No need for apologies, George, now or ever. I wasn't the least bit upset, slightly irritated, is all, that I'd failed to make my meaning clear. In any case I don't like too much pussy footing; rigorous debate is much better and we all have to take our bruises.
For the record, I don't like charlatanism either, though I suspect it's not all wilfull, on either side. The analytic side of course deal more with quantative data, and continental, qualititative (though the former is arguably always tainted with the latter). There is a certain aporia hanging over all intellectual discourse, or "language games" that ought to be recognised by both sides. How can positivist objectivity be anything but dogmatic, since it puts its faith in such dubious instrumentality. Having said that, I'm usually a defender of scientific method; but it's an instrumentality and not an ideology. The fault isn't with science, it's in the human failure to peg it to a viable and compelling set of ethics (some would argue religious ethics, but that has proved a comprehensive failure).
I'm extremely busy at the moment so will be posting less for a bit.
Just out of curiosity, George, as you say, some understanding of mathematics is important; is there a book you could recommend that might give me some rudimentary understanding, without my having to start from the beginning?
You didn't answer my question either; can you give any clear evidence that mathematics, unlike language, is not merely immanent--a human language designed to match phenomena, but without real transcendenca; psychologism, for instance?

The biggest pseudo-scientists are those in the field of economics. Assuming that human beings are rational, the market is perfect and building mythical theories based on these fables.

The promise of prosperity from globalisation, free-trade, minimum regulation by chief economists has opened the way for cheating by finance and banking institutions on a scale never seen before.

The world should bring to justice these liars and hold them accountable.

Economics is as scientific as Voodoo.

Squeers,
I am not sure you are still following this, however I know from another thread that you have acquired Sokal’s “Beyond the Hoax”, and since in the meantime I also have had a look at it, let me make some comments.

As I mentioned before, of the three parts the first one is more or less what he wrote about his hoax in “Fashionable nonsense”, and I did not read it. The second part “Science and Philosophy” is the most valuable, although it also, overlaps with “Fashionable nonsense”, and though not having read it completely I am definitely going to. One can learn from his philosophy of science from a working physicist’s perspective, although I still maintan that a more balanced (concerning the C.P. Snow divide) collection of views can be had from the mentioned above book “The One Culture”.

I spent most of my time reading PART III, devoted to attacks on ANY religion, not only its primitive, superstitious forms, but anything that can be called religion, whether seen from a philosopher’s, anthropologist’s, psychologist’s or historian’s perspective. So my hope, expressed in a previous post, that he “does not suffer from a similar naive and distorted understanding of basic concepts (about religion, especially philosophy of religion), as do those he criticises about their understanding of mathematics, physics and philosophy of science” was in vain. Of course, the difference is that while Lacan et al use their naive (and erroneous) understanding of mathematics and physics to support their views approvingly, Sokal does it disapprovingly, to put it mildly.

[Just a random example of his reasoning: “To exemplify the looniness of mainstream religious doctrine, we need not go so far as to consider the 45-53% of Americans who think that the universe and all life forms in it were created over a six-day period approximately 5800 years ago.” Well, as it stands, this to me “exemplifies” only the “looniness” of Americans.] (ctd)

(ctd)
Most of Sokal’s views on religion expressed here are built on Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” (and on, for me hitherto unknown, philosopher and rabbi, Michael Lerner, student of Herbert Marcuse). I have not read the Harris book, so I should not comment on it, but the quotes Sokal gives are indeed staggering by their naive understanding of the religious concepts involved.

You cannot speak credibly about philosophy of science without mentioning names like Kuhn, Popper, Feyerabend etc., and Sokal indeed deals with them in Part II. And you cannot speak credibly about the relation between religion (metaphysics, theology) and science, without mentioning names like Barbour, Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Ayala and many others (see e.g. http://www.ctns.org/theology_science.html) who are both accomplished natural scientists and have a degree in theology and/or philosophy. There is no mentioning of these in Part III. Sokal either disparagingly quotes statements of a purely religious character that are incomprehensible without the proper context (not unlike Lacan referring to mathematical concepts incomprehensible to a person like him, without the proper qualification), or fights straw men of his own creation.

So though I perhaps do not have to eat all my words I uttered about Lacan et al, enthusiastically supporting Sokal/Brickmont’s criticism of them, at least I should nibble at some of them (:-)) . (ctd)

(ctd)
>>is there a book you could recommend that might give me some rudimentary understanding, without my having to start from the beginning?<<
I am not sure what would be your beginning, but there are introductory mathematics courses (with recommended readings) for Faculty of Arts students, that are distinct in emphasis, and later also content, from those offered to Engineering, Science or Economics students (e.g. more emphasis on “what is mathematics“ than on “how to use it”).

Also you can gain an insight how important is mathematics in understanding the first things about the structure of the material world (elementary particles via QM, cosmology via relativity, supoerstring and multiverse hypotheses, etc) by reading popular explanatory texts written by specialists. Also Part II of Sokal’s recent book is not a bad start at trying to understand how (physical) reality is looked at by somebody with qualifications in mathematical physics.

>>can you give any clear evidence that mathematics, unlike language, is not merely immanent--a human language designed to match phenomena, but without real transcendenca; psychologism, for instance?<<

Perhaps you might be interested in the brief summary of what this is all about in http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/04/01/is-mathematics-invented-or-discovered/.

As to “clear (convincing) evidence” this to my mind is a subjective matter, namely the “convincing” part of it (e.g. a photo of the accused about to stab the victim was unheard of in a court 200 years ago, would be accepted as convincing evidence some 70 years ago, and is practically worthless since Adobe Photoshop).

I personally am convinced that mathematics is BOTH invented (mental constructions, language) AND discovered (the objective part that is witnessed to by Witten’s “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics). This comes from my experience (past) of a working mathematician, and I am aware that it does not have to be convincing to others, even mathematicians. (ctd)

(ctd)
[As you know, I correlate this with my experience of another nature (relating to faith), that sees religious concepts as BOTH human constructs AND referring to something beyond me, beyond humanity, with the same admission that this “evidence”, as convincing as it is to me, does not have to be to others both naively but devoutly religious and atheist (of course, for two different reasons).]

Hello George,
thanks for the feedback, and the links!
I've only browsed Sokal's new book so far but what I have noticed, in spades, is the "tone"; the same tone that can be found in Ditchkins, and in another positivist/analytic I've been reading (Thomas Metzinger) lately. That tone is one of contempt and ridicule of a straw man--the straw man of continental philosophy/poststructuralism--rather than substantial critique. I'm working on giving that straw man a backbone and vital organs for a conference paper at the moment, a synopsis of which I'll post in the next couple of weeks.

I have read lots of popular science texts over the years; Martin Gardner, John Gribbin, Dawkins (and Gould) Hawkins and Paul Davies, to name a few. But because these books were written mainly for laypeople, there wasn't much math. In fact there's more math in the work of cultural critic, Fredric Jameson (who doesn't get a mention in Sokal's book, I notice) than the physicists, or even mathematician's, like Gardner, that I've read.
But never mind, I seem to get by without the arcania of math, and don't have time to learn it. :-)