Re: [Critical-Realism] Sokal Hoax (NOT)

[Fred Zaman <agent.redstone@xxxxxxxxx>]

Brian, 
   
  You are definitely wrong on this point. It is Sokal and those of 
  his ilk that implant such suggestions?a red herring designed to 
  mislead and deceive. What I have developed and am describing is 
  not thus designed, but rather to expose a fundamental error in 
  the mechanistic-positivist worldview that its supporters are 
  struggling to keep in the dark.
   
  Brian,  if truly you wish to develop an understanding of the 
  basic theme, then you as well?Answer the questions I put to 
  Louis. Then we can go from there. Don?t worry about the big 
  picture of the essay?answer the questions. They are key?the 
  starting point?for the development of understanding. Not past 
  systems theorists, which are not important in this context 
  because they do not address questions such as this, but rather 
  lead one away from such an approach. Answer the questions I put 
  to Louis yesterday, please. Then, with that as the starting 
  point, we can begin to make progress.
   
  Fred


Brian Dick <briandick51@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:  Hi Fred,



I still think that Louis's suggestion that you might be trying to pull a
Sokal hoax on critical realism is the best explanation for your paper so
far. Sokal conducted his experiment to see if Social Text would "publish an
article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it
flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions," as Sokal told Lingua
Franca. Your paper is certainly liberally salted with nonsense and you
apparently have attempted to flatter many CRer's ideological preconceptions,
but your "experiment" has failed to sound good.



If this is not the case, then here are some of my own humble suggestions for
improving your paper. First, change the presumptuous title. This is
probably the main reason why people are so acerbic in their responses. While
you did insert the qualifier 'A', as opposed to 'The', your attempts to
develop a critical realist theory of America are much too ambitious,
especially given the sloppy manner in which you treat Bhaskar's
argument?but, hey, that's why we are reading his text together on the list
serve?to improve our understanding of it.



Second, what do you mean by systems theory? In various places (throughout
your post, O.b.,1.i.,1.n., etc.) you argue that you are developing a
critical realist systems theory. However, it is unclear what is meant by
this. You never bring up Talcott Parsons or Niklas Luhmann, either to
develop or to critique, but these names scream out to be addressed when you
propose to be developing a systems theory. It appears that your use of the
term 'systems theory' comes solely from Bhaskar's distinction between open
and closed systems.



Furthermore, you could have addressed the classic work of Ludwig von
Bertalanffy (*General System Theory*) where he lays out a general systems
theory and differentiates open and closed systems much more clearly and
systematically than Bhaskar (of course, given Bhaskar's goals, this isn't
really a problem). Bertalanffy would be very palatable to your stated
tastes. In the preface (xxii-xxiii) he writes, "the world of symbols,
values, social entities and cultures is something very "real"; and its
embeddedness in a cosmic order of hierarchies is apt to bridge the
opposition of C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures" of science and the humanities,
technology and history, natural and social sciences, or in whatever way the
antithesis is formulated."



Finally, and related to the general systems theory mentioned above, you
might also look at the work of Illya Prigogine and his theory of dissipative
structures, which arise out of non-linear processes in far-from-equilibrium
states, especially in his very accessible book, *Order out of Chaos*
(coauthored with Isabelle Stengers). (This is also a good place to find a
nice discussion of emergence, yet another lacunae in your argument as Louis
pointed out in his previous post). Rather, than trying to massage Newtonian
mechanics (much more consistent with positivism) into a manner that could be
used to analyze society, why not take a look at complexity theory (and its
critique of Newtonian mechanics), which is much more consistent with
critical reaism. Furthermore, this has already been systematically done by
David L. Harvey and Michael H. Reed, so there's no need to re-invent the
wheel:



Harvey, David L. and Michael H. Reed. (1994). "The Evolution of
Dissipative Social Systems." *Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems*.
17 (4): 371-411.

----------. (1996). "Social Science as the Study of Complex Systems" in
Kiel, Douglas L. and Euel Elliot. (1996). eds. *Chaos Theory in the
Social Sciences*. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 295-323.

Reed, Michael H. and David L. Harvey. (1992). "The New Science and the
Old: Complexity and Realism in the Social Sciences." *Journal for the
Theory of Social Behavior*, 22, 353-80.





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


 
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism