Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:24:34 -0600
Subject: Re: PKF: RE: Re: A reintroduction


My personal take on the whole Sokal affair is that he ridiculed that 
which he fundamentally did not understand, and that he was rewarded for 
that by others who shared his incomprehension. I could talk about Eco's 
distinction between the intentions of the author, the work and the 
reader: even if Sokal wrote the text, that doesn't give him the final 
word on its meaning (a) in itself and (b) for a particular reader. But I 
fear this is a polarised debate that can end up being as damaging to 
discourse as creationism/evolutionism! Suffice it to say that I wish 
Paul Feyerabend had been around during the Sokal affair.

D

meathorne-gould wrote:

>Okay 10 points go to James for the first correct response. Sorry ravi you
>were number 2. I appreciate your replies I don't remember corresponding with
>Ravi during that time but it was a while ago.
>
>The next 10 points are still up for grabs (I might even throw in a chocolate
>fish)
>
>Thanks for thinking about it James, I have a couple of comments on your
>preliminary thoughts that might (or might not) help.
>
>Yes you are correct when you say "...there are no sentences that have no
>meaning whatsoever" but I suspect that Sokal might say that stating this is
>just obfuscation, a bit like if I say "When it is raining it rains." Yes the
>sentence has meaning to someone who hears it, in fact if I said it they
>would probably look at me a little strangely which creates a whole other
>layer of meaning. I will take a liberty with Sokal though and venture to say
>that he might think that the sentence had no value and was in itself void of
>meaning. So one thing I think he is saying is that there are a few? some?
>many? in the field who write in this way simply because it sounds clever but
>in actual fact is empty. 
>
>What my second question was really saying then is -- Does relativism,
>post-modernism, nihilism and what ever other "ism" is in fashion at the
>moment (I don't know I've had nothing to do with the field for 6 + years)
>encourage this sort of meaningless statement and are those authors that
>write in this way rewarded within the field for their efforts when in fact
>what they write contributes nothing of value to anything except perhaps
>their bank accounts?
>
>
>Cheers
>Mike Eathorne-Gould
>meathorne-gould-AT-business.otago.ac.nz
>
>**********************************************************************
>Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>
>  
>


-- 
David R. Geelan, PhD
Department of Secondary Education 
341 Education South, University of Alberta
Edmonton AB, Canada T6G 2G5
Ph. (780) 492-5671, Fax (780) 492-9402
dgeelan-AT-ualberta.ca, http://bravus.port5.com

I can't find the printer manual. Do you think 
the rice cooker's similar enough? 
I found the manual for that. - someone in chat



**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu