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)