Re: [Critical-Realism] CR's Sokalization

["Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My support for a non-positivist naturalism (by no means the same as your 
positivistic convergence, though) is a matter of abundant public record (the 
archives of this list, e.g.) as is the opposition of every CR lister who has 
ever been (other than yourself) to "a comprehensive final theory" of 
anything.

Mervyn

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Zaman" <agent.redstone@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 8:38 PM
Subject: [Critical-Realism] CR's Sokalization




  And so, as I was fully expecting, Mervyn's other shoe drops.
  Mervyn clearly is intent on "Sokalizing" this list, which by this
  I mean using ridicule, enmity, fear mongering, and other modes of
  irrationality to inoculate the CR list against any possibility of
  a convergence of theory in the physical and social sciences. The
  Sokalites of philosophy and science, of which Alan Sokal himself
  in "Fashionable Nonsense"  of course is the exemplar, are
  absolutely dedicated to maintaining the physical and social as
  theoretically distinct and separate disciplines. Their critiques,
  however, are neither objective nor rational. Why? One reason is
  because there currently is no accepted theory covering the
  borderlands of the social and physical that can serve as the
  basis for the objective, rational discourse of such. Rationality
  and objectivity in the theoretical borderlands depends on a
  convergence of social and physical theory that presently doesn't
  exist--a state that the Sokalites of philosophy and science
  indeed are absolutely intent on maintaining through the only
  means available to them: irrationality, enmity, ridicule, and
  fear mongering.

  What "A Critical-Realist Theory of America" thus points to, which
  is a rational, objective convergence of physical and social
  theory in the borderlands, is exactly what Mervyn and other
  Sokalites hate with such passion. One would, based on the stated
  objectives of CR indicated in the "Journal of Critical Realism"
  and elsewhere, think that critical-realism is exactly the place
  where such an ideological bent would be absent; but that seems to
  not be true, at least in the case of Mervyn and Tim. Did Mervyn
  assume the post of JCR editor with such specifically ideological
  pretensions? One can only wonder (or not). The key to preventing
  such inoculations of ideology in CR, of course, is the
  maintenance of free and open discourse regarding a convergence in
  the theoretical borderlands of the physical and social--which
  open discourse the CR list of course should maintain absolutely.
  For the Sokalites of philosophy and science are destined to lose
  the struggle to maintain the borderlands of the physical and
  social sciences as a "theory free" zone. Indeed, as Bhaskar has
  clearly intimated, it is precisely in the current "absences" of
  the theoretical borderlands of the physical and social that CR
  will find its ultimate triumph; which any comprehensive, final
  theory thereof Sokalites undoubtedly will abhor as fashionable CR
  nonsense.

  Fred


_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism