>> 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religion, the same as science can play the role of kind of pseudo-religion in the minds of people who have a naive or outdated understanding of (philosophy of) science.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