Ligue1 (J12) : une reprise sans victoire

Dr. Brin,I must admit to being far less impressed with the Sokal hoax than you apaepr to be. Sokal did indeed succeed tremendously in skewering postmodern attempts to encroach on science, but the subsequent reaction among those of the general public who know about it at all and among many scientists has been somewhat excessive. It amounts to a straw man argument: Basically that because some of the most egregious proponents of anti-realism got fooled into believing that a physicist agreed with them, all of postmodernism is therefore bunk. The logical flaw here is pretty clear, I think. Of course, that doesn’t mean that postmodernism isn’t bunk….It is certainly true that the more reasonable postmodernists will nonetheless find that science encroaches on their self-drawn boundaries. They will undoubtedly scream bloody murder when it happens, too. And I won’t have any sympathy. But I have to admit that I find your implied (at least to me, sorry if I’ve misunderstood) argument that this somehow invalidates their position to be facile at best.I like your comparison to the science-religion relationship. But I think it also shows the limits of the future « encroachment » on postmodernism’s « turf ». Science has done a great job on a large range of aspects of human existence and the world around us. But there are limits. Science, almost by definition–and I realize you’re aware of this–really can’t deal with the question of God/gods, for example, because there is no apparent avenue to disproof.As to the new realms on which science will encroach, I haven’t read your Foundation book, so I don’t know how you dealt with the patent absurdity that is « psychohistory », but unless one actually thinks such a thing could someday be achieved, a large realm will remain in the humanities/so-called social science where science can tread only lightly and down narrow paths. Whether postmodernism is the right thing to fill the remainder of that realm is a different question, of course.As I alluded to above, science itself defines a realm in which it cannot act, by declaring that any idea that cannot in principle be disproven is not subject to scientific inquiry. This is a postmodern, post-Enlightenment idea. The very idea that observation and experiment and reason have limits is one that science and the Enlightenment were slow to accept, though it now forms a core principle. And the realm in question is at least potentially one in which postmodernism might contribute. To return to my original impetus for starting this conversation, I really don’t see science encroaching on literary criticism–I can’t even imagine what it might mean for it to do so, not and remain science. (Though, again, this doesn’t necessarily mean that postmodernism is the best basis for literary criticism.)Likewise, the drivel -sanctimony that their cant somehow helps liberate the suffering and oppressed from subjugation by oppressive western/colonialist memes. Find me anyone, anywhere, who was liberated by some postmodernist professor! While one inventor can help transform lives in developing nations.You’ll get no argument from me on this one.The Enlightenment succeeded. End of story.Again, no argument. Whether it will continue to do so, is of course, a matter for restrained skepticism (in the Enlightenment tradition) and hard work (again, in the Enlightenment tradition).They do not hate SF because of money. Lots of their approved arts make money and plenty of SF doesn’t. It is guilt by association. And hatred of progress.Well, this has not been my experience, but I’ll concede that my experience with postmodernists has largely been among cultural anthropologists, who tend to see any commercial endeavor as inherently crass and of low worth. My one direct experience of a postmodernist literary type came in the form of a college English course where the professor was a big fan of the postmodern elements of a number of SF novels–none of them the type of SF I like, I must admit. He complained occasionally that his colleagues couldn’t understand why he spent so much time on fiction-for-the-masses. Just an anecdote, though, not real evidence.Anyway, I suspect we’ve beaten this dead horse enough for awhile. I would, of course, be happy to continue the discussion, but we’re probably boring and/or irritating your other readers. Feel free to drop by my new, and as yet all-but-readerless if you’d like to expand the discussion. (Though I’m sure you have better things to do with your time – like more fiction, or better yet a real version of The Transparent Hand from Earth.)