Reply to Gabriel Stolzenberg
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11924301 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jean Bricmont (0000-0001-9182-9364, Institut de Physique ThÈorique, UniversitÈ Catholique de Louvain, 2 chemin du Cyclotron, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; fax: +32 10 472 414, corresponding author), Alan D Sokal (0000-0002-1891-0200, New York University, corresponding author), Alan Sokal (Department of Physics, New York University, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA; fax: +1 212 995 4016) |
| Year | 2004 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 107-113 |
| Publication date | 2004-02-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Studies of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0306-3127 • E-ISSN: 1460-3659 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306312704040491 |
| OpenAlex | W2044082468 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 3 |
Programme, which merit further discussion. It is a pity, therefore, that he mars his essay with snide comments about philosopher Paul Boghossian (‘had he not been doing his Ken Starr imitation’) and – ironically in the light of his focus on ‘misreading ’ – tendentious misrepresentations of our own views. Let us, therefore, deal quickly with the latter, before addressing more substantive questions. Referring to our views on the Strong Programme, Stolzenberg asserts (p. 79) baldly that we ‘wish to see it dead’. This is a pure invention on Stolzenberg’s part, without the slightest basis in what we have written.1 Indeed, we are perplexed as to why Stolzenberg would choose to describe an intellectual debate in such emotion-laden (not to say militaristic) terms.2 Quite simply, we think that some aspects of the Strong Programme are epistemologically and methodologically misguided; our essay in The One Culture was devoted to explaining our objections and the reasons behind them. Stolzenberg also accuses us of misreading a second-round comment of Jane Gregory’s. We think that Stolzenberg’s accusation is unjustified; but since the point at issue is relatively minor – a comment made in passing on the way to discussing the central question raised by Gregory – we leave the reader to judge for herself.3 Stolzenberg cites (p. 80) approvingly Michael Lynch’s ‘thoughtful analyses of pop metaphysical one-liners by Sokal, Weinberg and Richard Dawkins’. But he does not ask why Lynch chose to analyse a one-liner taken from a three-page polemical article, rather than the 56-page book chapter devoted to a detailed analysis of questions from the philosophy of science.4 Finally, Stolzenberg takes us to task for prefacing a statement with the words ‘it seems obvious that’; he claims that we give ‘no argument ’ in favour of the assertion in question, and he concludes by asking sarcastic-ally: ‘Is this the kind of scholarship that they and their admirers favor? ’ But
Epistemology · Literature · Metaphysics · Parochialism · Pejorative · Pity · Politics · Sociology · Wish · Law · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education · Science and Climate Studies
| Citations per year | 0.05 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2004 - 2004 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |