Product Description

Cultural critics say that 'science is politics by other means,' arguing that the results of scientific inquiry are profoundly shaped by the ideological agendas of powerful elites. Physicist Alan Sokal recently poked fun at these claims by foisting a sly parody of the genre on the unwitting editors of the cultural studies journal Social Text, touching off a still-unabated torrent of heated discussion. This hard-hitting collection picks up where Sokal left off. The essayists offer crisp and detailed critiques of case studies offered by the cultural critics as evidence that scientific results tell as more about social context than they do about the natural world. Pulling no punches, they identify numerous crude factual blunders (e.g. that Newton never performed any experiments) and egregious errors of omission, such as the attempt to explain the slow development of fluid dynamics solely on the terms of gender bias. Where there are positive aspects of a flawed account,or something to be learned from it, they do not hesitate to say so. Their target is shoddy scholarship. Comprising new essays by distinguished scholars of history, philosophy and science (including Sokal himself), this book raises lively debate to a new level of seriousness.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1310729 in Books
• Published on: 1998-09-24
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 336 pages

Review
"Editor Koertge offers an excellent array of writings dealing with controversies that have arisen in connection with science studies and the so-called 'Science Wars.'"--Choice
"This book is the latest and most explosive bomb to be launched in the 'science' wars.'...Academics on both sides of the debate will need this book. Expect a counterattack."--Library Journal
"A thoughtful, wide-ranging, spirited, and highly informative collection. The sophisticated case for objectivity is fully developed in these expert pages."--Frederick Crews, author of The Memory Wars (1995) and editor of Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend (1998)
"Critics as well as admirers of science will find in these essays much that deserves to be taken to heart, head, and hearth. Large wings of the rambling postmodern house suffer from shoddy work or sandy footing. This should help both cultural scholars and scientists to find bedrock for sturdy construction rather than cynical deconstruction."--Dudley Herschback, Harvard University
"There is no more important debate than that going on now between those who believe that the scientific approach to knowledge is at root a force for democracy and progress and those who instead believe that democracy requires for its development a repudiation of the claim that science provides a universal and rational framework for thought in favor of a broad epistemic relativism. This book captures a significant moment in this debate and should be required reading for anyone interested in the language and values we will use to shape our common future."--Lee Smolin, Pennsylvania State University

Customer Reviews

Counterstrike!
Noretta Koertge deserves the highest praise for assembling this group of essays. Anyone feeling the "postmodernist" assault on literature or philosophy has deteriorated will learn that science remains besieged by the cult of "cultural relativism". Each author provides a counterstrike against selected issues the "pomos" have launched to discredit science and/or scientists. In brief, postmodern attacks on science are uniformly devoid of understanding how science works. The critics of science distort history, fabricate or selectively edit texts and create meaningless issues. The collection illuminates these practices, exposing a wealth of poor scholarship and specious reasoning.

The writing quality in these selections is uniformly good, although some topics may prove difficult for readers unfamiliar with the material. "Superstring" theory, for example, is perhaps the most arcane topic in physics, but Norman Levitt underscores its importance in a finely developed essay on the future of science. Difficult subjects may cause some readers to avoid delving into this collection as being too remote. Never fear - this anthology has urgent value for you. To best understand why, you should read this series starting near the back. Koertge's essay on the impact of postmodernism on education is more than a little frightening. Koertge labels the application of "pomo" on education as "Civilian Casualties", amply demonstrating why this book should receive wide readership. She clearly demonstrates how far ideology attempts, and to some extent succeeds, in distorting the teaching of many fields such as mathematics.

While the essays cover a wide spectrum of topics, a recurring theme is the impact of "feminist" writers. Feminist attacks on science hinge on the dominant role men have played in science in the past. Instead of simply calling for more women to enter research fields, feminist ideologues blitz the entire scientific programme. Koertge and the others here demonstrate that science and mathematics teaching is being politicised. "Feminist science", whatever that is, aims to revise fundamentally how science is done. These essays confirm that ambition is misleading and destructive. Yet, as the collection clearly shows, this objective has permeated North American education and media. "Ethnoscience", a derivative of the feminist ideology and purporting to supplant empirical science methods, is in ascendancy here and elsewhere. Koertge and her colleagues examine and repudiate the underlying concepts of this movement. A telling essay by Meera Nanda shows how postmodernist ideology has invaded the Third World in fomenting bad science in the name of ultra-nationalism and against a perceived "neo-colonialism" from the West. Proponents of "Islamic Science" have openly adopted Western feminist writers in their tactics.

This book is a campaign document, but shouldn't be faulted for that. It is, after all, responding to a crusade eroding three centuries of effort by dedicated researchers and thinkers. Science is fundamental to our daily living, something its transparency leads us to forget. These authors restore the respect science deserves. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

It deserves more...
A few months ago, I gave this book a mere three stars. Since then, I've used arguments made in the book several times. There are, alas, many people out there, especially among "Left" activists, who really do believe that, for example, we "Westerners" are all unrepentant bigots, that we have done nothing for the rest of the world except pursue our racist and imperialistic tendencies, and on and on. We do live in some pretty anti-scientific times, and that opens the door for New Age fairy tales especially among the better educated, those, again, of a social inclination who can't understand the "hard sciences," so we blame them for all our shortcomings.

I'd like to give the book five stars even if it might help sell just one. But, as I'm not a "hard scientist" myself, I can't claim to understand everything in the book, and I'll have to limit it to four.

Please, read it, though, and don't be surprised if it opens your eyes to the "arguments" people are using which are swiftly refuted in the book. At least acquaint yourself with the arguments, and use them to confront the Sandra Hardings and their ilk who really haven't a clue what they're talking about.

Great reading, but more comprehensible for hard scientists
I have a theory: That those of us with a social science inclination are intimidated by the specialized expertise required of the "hard" sciences. Consequently, we try to rival it with incomprehensible jargon, and findings with no evidentiary basis, of our own. We have, of course, our causes, racism, sexism, this-ism, that-ism. And, because we see hard scientists as our adversaries--because we don't understand what they're saying or how they reached their conclusions (and maybe because we envy them)--we accuse them of these sins.

This fine book is based on Alan Sokal's parody published by an allegedly scholarly social journal. Unfortunately for the journal's editors, they did not recognize it as a parody. In the parody, Sokal, a physicist, actually, heaven help us, quoted some of the post-modernists' "findings," that, for example, various conclusions of quantum mechanics--again, far beyond the comprehension of us social scientists--are based on white, male biases, and other nonsense of that ilk. The essays in the book were written by Sokal and other scientists citing particular post-modernists' work, and their dubious conclusions. They're good in describing, for example, the preconceived notions and false assumptions of the post-modernists, and how some "renowned" post-modernists' conclusions are not what they would have found had they followed their own logic. The essays, while eloquent, were written more for those who can understand the math used in the documents that the post-modernists trash.

There is a real talent in being able to translate difficult hard science math and conclusions into lay (non-scientist) terms. It has been done, and there are good magazines ("Astronomy" and "Scientific American" come to mind) that provide examples of it. While the book tries to do this, it can be a little dry for those of us without that hard science/math background. Fortunately, being dry and incomprehensible are not the same thing, so I understood what the authors were saying. And their refutation of the post-modernist balderdash is a blessing.

As to the post-modernists, as a veteran "leftist," I hear their balderdash all the time. Because of it, I've argued for years that the left is its own worst enemy. The (easily refutable) deductions of sexism and the like contribute to the "identity politics" which has limited my fellow progressives to shouting to each other.

I hope someone with the talent to which I already referred can better compile, or summarize the findings illustrated in this volume, so that maybe, just maybe, we can start being rational.