209
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: +
→Sokal
::::Social Text is not generally considered a leading journal in the field, in large part because of it not being peer-reviewed at the time of the Sokal Affair. Whilst Sokal has critiqued aspects of postmodernism, this is no more than has been done by many others and will continue to be done. It is also but another example of the criticism that is constantly thrown back and forth between proponents of different schools of thought. One essentially flawed paper that got through is not equal to stating that an entire of school of thought is fundamentally flawed, this was just his opinion and it said no more than others already had. The only real thing you could say came out of it was that it highlighted the debate, rather than being a winning move in it. And even to suggest the staff at Social Text were incompetent is going a bit far since the journal was not peer-reviewed at the time. The editors have even said they had their doubts about the article, but the purpose of the journal was to allow people to present their ideas. Some have even criticised Sokal, saying that him submitting his paper to such a journal was more a case of deceit on his part than an exposure of any significant flaws on the part of the editors. By all means the Sokal affair is worthy of mention here, but it has been attributed far more importance than it deserves. Postmodernism (a very loose term) still thrives to this day in a variety of fields. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:03, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::::Social Text is not generally considered a leading journal in the field, in large part because of it not being peer-reviewed at the time of the Sokal Affair. Whilst Sokal has critiqued aspects of postmodernism, this is no more than has been done by many others and will continue to be done. It is also but another example of the criticism that is constantly thrown back and forth between proponents of different schools of thought. One essentially flawed paper that got through is not equal to stating that an entire of school of thought is fundamentally flawed, this was just his opinion and it said no more than others already had. The only real thing you could say came out of it was that it highlighted the debate, rather than being a winning move in it. And even to suggest the staff at Social Text were incompetent is going a bit far since the journal was not peer-reviewed at the time. The editors have even said they had their doubts about the article, but the purpose of the journal was to allow people to present their ideas. Some have even criticised Sokal, saying that him submitting his paper to such a journal was more a case of deceit on his part than an exposure of any significant flaws on the part of the editors. By all means the Sokal affair is worthy of mention here, but it has been attributed far more importance than it deserves. Postmodernism (a very loose term) still thrives to this day in a variety of fields. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:03, 3 November 2009 (EST)
:::::yes Social text was a leading journal. the peer-reviewing seems to be besides the point: the humanities editor published a science article that was utter nonsense. As far as he was concerned, it met his criteria and truth evidently was not one of the criteria. Postmodernism does NOT thrive in science--in good part because of the Sokal affair. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:21, 3 November 2009 (EST)
:::::yes Social text was a leading journal. the peer-reviewing seems to be besides the point: the humanities editor published a science article that was utter nonsense. As far as he was concerned, it met his criteria and truth evidently was not one of the criteria. Postmodernism does NOT thrive in science--in good part because of the Sokal affair. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:21, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::::::I never said it thrived in science, perhaps one of the few fields where it has not caught on in any major way. Science relies on the idea of objectivity, the idea that there is a real world existing independent of human experience. Postmodernism has often questioned this view and indeed the idea that objectivity is anything other than an unattainable ideal. Science, as Karl Popper, hailed by many as the greatest philosopher of science, admits, acceptance of the scientific method relies upon the belief that objectivity is possible. The debate 'between' post-modernists and scientists is often one where people end up talking past each other. For one thing you will find few in the former group who would deny the value of the scientific method, an accusation which is often thrown their way. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:29, 3 November 2009 (EST)