Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 16:55:40 -0600
Subject: "critique of science"


Although I am not as hostile to all things pomo as some other
outspoken folks around here, I _do_ think there is a lot of "critique
of science" stuff that is unintelligible or otherwise impossible to
deal with.

How can I engage with one who insists that all science is inherently
reactionary, evolutionary theory is suspect because Darwin was not
working class, etc.?  This is "bad pomo" to me.  I have sincerely
tried to discuss things and learn what they have to offer with some
of these people on the "science as culture" list [offered by ed. of
journal of same name] and I found it quite unrewarding.  

At first there were some other scientists.  Then there were a few of
the most talkative "science / cultural studies" people spouting
vulgar, uninformed anti-science of the worst sort that I had hoped
not to find.  Then there were a few people wondering why there
weren't more scientists interested in engaging with science studies.

Good grief, Charlie Brown, get a clue.

The last time I ventured a post there on how self-critical the
science I was taught was intended to be, and how well aware some of
us scientists are about the flaws and abuses of how science actually
works,  I got one well-meaning but condescending remark about how
nice it was that I was so "humble", for a scientist.

I admit that this was all a bit off-putting.

So, I'm not celebrating non-communication.  Maybe I just haven't
found anything that is willing/able to communicate with me.

Leo wrote:
That the cultural studies types on _Social Text_ know little or
nothing about hard science is no revelation; the same can be said of
how most hard scientists view philosophy and
discourse theory. The mutual unintelligibility, and the refusal to
engage each other, is no cause for celebration.



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---