Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

physics.nyu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#31

Post by olavk »

crux wrote: post #17

I am generally aware and wary of the hackerish tendency to deride mightily any intellectual undertaking or material that doesn't triumph, confirm, or conform to their strictly rationalist view of the world and its every corner. I find it boorish and stifling. More to the point, I have some incredibly intelligent friends who have spent a good amount of time with Deconstruction (not identical with Pomo, of course) and…

Maybe Sturgueons Law (90% of everything is crap) also applies to philosophy and postmodernism?

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#32

Post by eru »

RK wrote: post #25

A few years ago there was the so-called Bogdanov Affair in physics, which some people claimed was a "reverse Sokal hoax" (i.e. publishing bogus physics that was so esoteric that no one could tell whether it was legitimate). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

Yes. But fortunately (for the phyisicists) the Bogdanov brothers were not postmodernist pranksters.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#33

Post by michael_dorfman »

crux wrote: post #17

I am generally aware and wary of the hackerish tendency to deride mightily any intellectual undertaking or material that doesn't triumph, confirm, or conform to their strictly rationalist view of the world and its every corner. I find it boorish and stifling. More to the point, I have some incredibly intelligent friends who have spent a good amount of time with Deconstruction (not identical with Pomo, of course) and…

In the case of Derrida, I'd recommend you take a look at Arkady Plotnitsky's article "But It Is Above All Not True": Derrida, Relativity, and the "Science Wars", in the journal "Postmodern Culture" (unfortunately now behind a paywall at MUSE).

The short version: Sokal (and those who follow in his footsteps) cherry-pick their quotes, and then refuse to read them in any kind of context whatsoever. To think that this has anything to do with forming an informed opinion of a philosopher (or other thinker) is ludicrous.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#35

Post by tybris »

xtho wrote: post #28

CS can be pretty postmodern too: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ (An Automatic CS Paper Generator)

It probably has more to do with the ability of computer scientists to create a paper generator than with CS in particular. There are people who can neither think nor write in every branch of science. The remarkable thing about postmodernism is that there are no other people in it.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#36

Post by tybris »

xtho wrote: post #27
abstractbill wrote: post #5

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... I'm having a hard time believing this can be anything other than satire.

At a certain point in history, those sentences were capable of initiating a new way of thinking that was impossible before. 30 years later, Mr. Dawkins enjoys himself beating a dead horse.

What point in history do you refer to?

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#37

Post by tybris »

crux wrote: post #17

I am generally aware and wary of the hackerish tendency to deride mightily any intellectual undertaking or material that doesn't triumph, confirm, or conform to their strictly rationalist view of the world and its every corner. I find it boorish and stifling. More to the point, I have some incredibly intelligent friends who have spent a good amount of time with Deconstruction (not identical with Pomo, of course) and…

All young people think their ideas are unique and valuable. As you grow older you learn that other people have the same ideas and what makes them succeed is hard work. In case of science this is called research. Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein did not write about his stroke of genius, he wrote about the years he spent working out the equations. Postmodernism is the language of a group of lazy intellectuals, who thereby fail to become scientists.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#38

Post by tybris »

akamaka wrote: post #20
crux wrote: post #17

I am generally aware and wary of the hackerish tendency to deride mightily any intellectual undertaking or material that doesn't triumph, confirm, or conform to their strictly rationalist view of the world and its every corner. I find it boorish and stifling. More to the point, I have some incredibly intelligent friends who have spent a good amount of time with Deconstruction (not identical with Pomo, of course) and…

I'm embarrassed every time an article like this gets posted to Hacker News. I don't think anyone here would take Ray Kurzweil's books seriously, but quite a few people would upvote an article by Dawkins or Chomsky, whose books have contributed to their respective fields in the same way that Kurzweil has to ours -- which is to say, not at all. P.S. The last time someone submitted an article about the Sokal affair, I p…

Books are not supposed to contribute at all. They are supposed to be an overarching view of the knowledge and ideas that exist in the area of interest. His books were meant to educate the public about evolution through natural selection.

For contributions to the field please refer to his journal publications. A partial list is given in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard...

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#40

Post by xtho »

tybris wrote: post #36
xtho wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a certain point in history, those sentences were capable of initiating a new way of thinking that was impossible before. 30 years later, Mr. Dawkins enjoys himself beating a dead horse.

What point in history do you refer to?

30 to 40 years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray
Post reply on HN