A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-02 09:13pm

Just found this interesting little article.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/soka ... ca_v4.html

A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies

Alan D. Sokal
Department of Physics
New York University
4 Washington Place
New York, NY 10003 USA
Internet: SOKAL@NYU.EDU
Telephone: (212) 998-7729
Fax: (212) 995-4016

The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time.

-- Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism (1990)

For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American academic humanities. But I'm a mere physicist: if I find myself unable to make head or tail of jouissanceand différance, perhaps that just reflects my own inadequacy.

So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies -- whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross -- publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?

The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Interested readers can find my article, ``Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,'' in the Spring/Summer 1996 issue of Social Text. It appears in a special number of the magazine devoted to the ``Science Wars.''

What's going on here? Could the editors reallynot have realized that my article was written as a parody?

In the first paragraph I deride ``the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook'':

that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

Is it now dogma in Cultural Studies that there exists no external world? Or that there exists an external world but science obtains no knowledge of it?

In the second paragraph I declare, without the slightest evidence or argument, that ``physical `reality' [note the scare quotes] ... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.'' Not our theoriesof physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)

Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously. For example, I suggest that the ``morphogenetic field'' -- a bizarre New Age idea due to Rupert Sheldrake -- constitutes a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity. This connection is pure invention; even Sheldrake makes no such claim. I assert that Lacan's psychoanalytic speculations have been confirmed by recent work in quantum field theory. Even nonscientist readers might well wonder what in heavens' name quantum field theory has to do with psychoanalysis; certainly my article gives no reasoned argument to support such a link.

Later in the article I propose that the axiom of equality in mathematical set theory is somehow analogous to the homonymous concept in feminist politics. In reality, all the axiom of equality states is that two sets are identical if and only if they have the same elements. Even readers without mathematical training might well be suspicious of the claim that the axiom of equality reflects set theory's ``nineteenth-century liberal origins.''

In sum, I intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.

The fundamental silliness of my article lies, however, not in its numerous solecisms but in the dubiousness of its central thesis and of the ``reasoning'' adduced to support it. Basically, I claim that quantum gravity -- the still-speculative theory of space and time on scales of a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter -- has profound politicalimplications (which, of course, are ``progressive''). In support of this improbable proposition, I proceed as follows: First, I quote some controversial philosophical pronouncements of Heisenberg and Bohr, and assert (without argument) that quantum physics is profoundly consonant with ``postmodernist epistemology.'' Next, I assemble a pastiche -- Derrida and general relativity, Lacan and topology, Irigaray and quantum gravity -- held together by vague rhetoric about ``nonlinearity'', ``flux'' and ``interconnectedness.'' Finally, I jump (again without argument) to the assertion that ``postmodern science'' has abolished the concept of objective reality. Nowhere in all of this is there anything resembling a logical sequence of thought; one finds only citations of authority, plays on words, strained analogies, and bald assertions.

In its concluding passages, my article becomes especially egregious. Having abolished reality as a constraint on science, I go on to suggest (once again without argument) that science, in order to be ``liberatory,'' must be subordinated to political strategies. I finish the article by observing that ``a liberatory science cannot be complete without a profound revision of the canon of mathematics.'' We can see hints of an ``emancipatory mathematics,'' I suggest, ``in the multidimensional and nonlinear logic of fuzzy systems theory; but this approach is still heavily marked by its origins in the crisis of late-capitalist production relations.'' I add that ``catastrophe theory, with its dialectical emphases on smoothness/discontinuity and metamorphosis/unfolding, will indubitably play a major role in the future mathematics; but much theoretical work remains to be done before this approach can become a concrete tool of progressive political praxis.'' It's understandable that the editors of Social Text were unable to evaluate critically the technical aspects of my article (which is exactly why they should have consulted a scientist). What's more surprising is how readily they accepted my implication that the search for truth in science must be subordinated to a political agenda, and how oblivious they were to the article's overall illogic.

Why did I do it? While my method was satirical, my motivation is utterly serious. What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking: one that denies the existence of objective realities, or (when challenged) admits their existence but downplays their practical relevance. At its best, a journal like Social Textraises important questions that no scientist should ignore -- questions, for example, about how corporate and government funding influence scientific work. Unfortunately, epistemic relativism does little to further the discussion of these matters.

In short, my concern over the spread of subjectivist thinking is both intellectual and political. Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is that they are false (when not simply meaningless). There isa real world; its properties are notmerely social constructions; facts and evidence domatter. What sane person would contend otherwise? And yet, much contemporary academic theorizing consists precisely of attempts to blur these obvious truths -- the utter absurdity of it all being concealed through obscure and pretentious language.

Social Text's acceptance of my article exemplifies the intellectual arrogance of Theory -- meaning postmodernist literarytheory -- carried to its logical extreme. No wonder they didn't bother to consult a physicist. If all is discourse and ``text,'' then knowledge of the real world is superfluous; even physics becomes just another branch of Cultural Studies. If, moreover, all is rhetoric and ``language games,'' then internal logical consistency is superfluous too: a patina of theoretical sophistication serves equally well. Incomprehensibility becomes a virtue; allusions, metaphors and puns substitute for evidence and logic. My own article is, if anything, an extremely modest example of this well-established genre.

Politically, I'm angered because most (though not all) of this silliness is emanating from the self-proclaimed Left. We're witnessing here a profound historical volte-face. For most of the past two centuries, the Left has been identified with science and against obscurantism; we have believed that rational thought and the fearless analysis of objective reality (both natural and social) are incisive tools for combating the mystifications promoted by the powerful -- not to mention being desirable human ends in their own right. The recent turn of many ``progressive'' or ``leftist'' academic humanists and social scientists toward one or another form of epistemic relativism betrays this worthy heritage and undermines the already fragile prospects for progressive social critique. Theorizing about ``the social construction of reality'' won't help us find an effective treatment for AIDS or devise strategies for preventing global warming. Nor can we combat false ideas in history, sociology, economics and politics if we reject the notions of truth and falsity.

The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy. The editors of Social Textliked my article because they liked its conclusion: that ``the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project.'' They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion.

Of course, I'm not oblivious to the ethical issues involved in my rather unorthodox experiment. Professional communities operate largely on trust; deception undercuts that trust. But it is important to understand exactly what I did. My article is a theoretical essay based entirely on publicly available sources, all of which I have meticulously footnoted. All works cited are real, and all quotations are rigorously accurate; none are invented. Now, it's true that the author doesn't believe his own argument. But why should that matter? The editors' duty as scholars is to judge the validity and interest of ideas, without regard for their provenance. (That is why many scholarly journals practice blind refereeing.) If the Social Texteditors find my arguments convincing, then why should they be disconcerted simply because I don't? Or are they more deferent to the so-called ``cultural authority of technoscience'' than they would care to admit?

In the end, I resorted to parody for a simple pragmatic reason. The targets of my critique have by now become a self-perpetuating academic subculture that typically ignores (or disdains) reasoned criticism from the outside. In such a situation, a more direct demonstration of the subculture's intellectual standards was required. But how can one show that the emperor has no clothes? Satire is by far the best weapon; and the blow that can't be brushed off is the one that's self-inflicted. I offered the Social Texteditors an opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual rigor. Did they meet the test? I don't think so.

I say this not in glee but in sadness. After all, I'm a leftist too (under the Sandinista government I taught mathematics at the National University of Nicaragua). On nearly all practical political issues -- including many concerning science and technology -- I'm on the same side as the Social Texteditors. But I'm a leftist (and feminist) becauseof evidence and logic, not in spite of it. Why should the right wing be allowed to monopolize the intellectual high ground?

And why should self-indulgent nonsense -- whatever its professed political orientation -- be lauded as the height of scholarly achievement?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-02 09:55pm

Proves my theory that the press tends to be a bunch of uninformed people barely a step up the evolutionary ladder from fundamentalists. Sad, but not surprising.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-02 10:33pm

It only goes to expose the blatant pseudoscience that is social "science."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-02 10:44pm

* waits for somebody to jump in, screaming that his brother/sister/wife/friend is a psychologist, and they work really hard in school learning about their chosen discipline's grossly distorted version of the scientific method *

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-02 10:51pm

I'm not going to argue that psychology is all scientifically kosher, because I know it's not, but I work with psychologists, and whether what they do is scientifically correct or not, therapists do tend to have a positive influence on people. I would mention specific examples (to provide evidence), but there's a non-disclosure agreement in my contract.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-02 11:13pm

The Dark wrote:I'm not going to argue that psychology is all scientifically kosher, because I know it's not, but I work with psychologists, and whether what they do is scientifically correct or not, therapists do tend to have a positive influence on people. I would mention specific examples (to provide evidence), but there's a non-disclosure agreement in my contract.

I agree that psychologists can help people. So can a good friend who's willing to listen. It does not validate their defacement of science and the steady erosion of intellectual rigour perpetrated on our society by their overly popular, clownish distortion upon the scientific method.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-02 11:25pm

No one is saying that psychology is useless, but it's not a science. Carpentry isn't a science, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful.

Psychologists think that, because they deal with statistics and do a little math, that they're qualified to call themselves scientists. They're not.

However, psychology doesn't hold a candle to sociology in the "useless pseudoscience" department. Just from taking a sociology class, you learn just how useless a profession it is. All I've ever seen in that class is statistics. Never has the professor outlined a method for actually solving problems. He also claimed that there were multiple scientific methods, conveniently, his particular method didn't include Occam's Razor or predictive capacities in theorizing.

The "theories" I've seen in my textbook appear to be nothing more than philosophical wordplay. They include no numerical predictions, only vague references to "consciousness" or whatever. The biggest problem with the social "sciences" is that they assume complexity, which means that they can make up whatever bizarre, ridiculous explanation they wish for their theories.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-02 11:26pm

At least neuropsychology attempts to examine thought processes based on electrochemical reactions...your description of sociology just frightens me.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-02 11:39pm

My mother is a 'social worker', and thus has a degree in social services and is by definition a 'psychologist'.

She, however, holds no illusions about it being a 'science'. There are no statistics or theories involved. What she does is simply try to talk people through their problems and help them get on with their lives.

It's a very noble profession. Don't knock it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-02 11:52pm

Cyril wrote:It's a very noble profession. Don't knock it.

So is nursing. But nurses don't call themselves scientists. Our beef is with the fact that people actually think psychology is a science.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-02 11:56pm

The Dark wrote:At least neuropsychology attempts to examine thought processes based on electrochemical reactions...your description of sociology just frightens me.

I can confirm it. I read through some sociology textbooks when I was in university. It's a joke. They make no effort whatsoever to observe the logical principle of parsimony (as Damien pointed out), so the end result tends to be that theories proliferate rather than being refined. Normal science is replete with theories that were disproven through objective methods, eventually abandoned by the entire scientific community, and left to rot on the trash heap of history. But in sociology, theories never die. They are cyclical; they come in and out of vogue, with no means to remove the bad ones from consideration. No sociology theory ever truly dies.

Sociology is an object lesson in the critical importance of parsimony to the scientific method.

Rathark · Post by **Rathark** » 2002-11-03 03:22am

Having studied Communication and Cultural Studies part-time for a good chunk of my life, I have come to these conclusions:

1: (Bear with me here) CCS is a good thing when the theories themselves are acknowledged to be subjective. In other words, it should never be treated as an objective science, but as a means to understanding other points of view, other cultures, other political systems, and how language and culture determines the subjective viewpoint of the individual.

2: (The all-important flipside) When taken too far, CCS can be a monolith of hypocrisy. While acknowledging and even insisting on the validity of cultural relativism, there is a danger that these theories of cultural relativism themselves could be treated as objective and universal. In other words, CCS sometimes IS treated as an objective science: "There are no absolutes unless we say so, and if you disagree THEN YOU ARE A BOURGEOUIS CAPITALIST FASCIST AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE HERE". Fortunately, this is rare, but the attitude sometimes bubbles under the surface. One lecturer "deconstructed" Orwell's 1984 for being propoganda in favour of democracy. Speaks for itself, really.

At its worst, CCS pretends to be cynical of the system and the meritocracy while being a very powerful part of the meritocratic system that it is criticising (while pretending not to). What could possibly be more meritocratic than giving you a percentage at the end of the semester if you write essays that stick to accepted theory?

Combine this with a cynical attitude towards science and a tendancy to blame fiction and movies for "constructing cultural viewpoints", and you have a somewhat uncomfortable environment for the budding SF writer. In fact, some of the most intelligent and insightful discussions took place outside the tutorials and workshops during our snack breaks, when mostly male students (sorry gals) got together and enquired "Now what did you REALLY think of that novel/movie/essay/poem ...?"

Don't get me wrong; for the most part it WAS very flexible and honest about it's own subjectivity. But sometimes it was too easy to see where this all could lead ...

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-11-03 03:32am

Rathark wrote:One lecturer "deconstructed" Orwell's 1984 for being propoganda in favour of democracy. Speaks for itself, really.

Umm, isn't that the whole point behind 1984? As a work of propaganda (an argument for) for democracy as a superior alternative to totalitarianism?

Propaganda is of course not naturally evil. It is simply a method of arguing a point of view using about the same liberties of truth as Enron used in their ledgers.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-03 03:38am

Rathark wrote:At its worst, CCS pretends to be cynical of the system and the meritocracy while being a very powerful part of the meritocratic system that it is criticising (while pretending not to). What could possibly be more meritocratic than giving you a percentage at the end of the semester if you write essays that stick to accepted theory?

Ummm, that's not meritocratic. You are being graded not on merit, but on intellectual obedience to authority. Meritocracy is fair; liberal-arts grading is not; it is purely subjective.

Don't get me wrong; for the most part it WAS very flexible and honest about it's own subjectivity. But sometimes it was too easy to see where this all could lead ...

Most subjectivists are willing to remain subjective. Their problem is that they often deny the very idea of objectivity in a transparent attempt to pretend that it simply doesn't get better than what they're doing. There is nothing more annoying to a liberal-arts person hearing a scientist or engineer state quite flatly: "no, that's wrong".

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-03 05:51am

Ummm.... Interesting paper.

Is his goal to debunk the entire non-scientific academia or just snipe at those that are labelled "sciences" such as Social Science or Political Science?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-03 11:45am

weemadando wrote:Ummm.... Interesting paper.

Is his goal to debunk the entire non-scientific academia or just snipe at those that are labelled "sciences" such as Social Science or Political Science?

I think a little of both. Here's a question for you: how many popular theories in social "science", psychology, or any other liberal-arts field have ever been conclusively debunked and discarded? Can you say: NONE? They're cyclical; they come and go. No theory is ever declared completely without merit and thrown away.

Liberal-arts may have a certain usefulness to society (as music does), but its practitioners often have a certain contempt for the scientific method which they believe makes them superior to scientists and engineers in many ways (don't pretend it doesn't exist; I lived in an artsie-dominated dorm in university). This blinds them to the usefulness and effectiveness of that method. The fact that they are seemingly incapable of EVER deciding that a theory (ANY theory) is simply wrong, and the fact that they have a collective belief in the use of quotes as "evidence" (again, let's not lie; I took enough liberal-arts electives in school to know that despite the obvious logical fallacy, quotes are considered "evidence" for the purpose of writing papers) are both serious indictments of their methods. This guy is merely highlighting those problems.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-03 02:44pm

The other problem is that I'm not even sure what is a theory and what isn't in sociology.

Here's an example of a theorem, but it's the only one explicitly-defined as a theory that I could find.

Thomas Theorem: Situations defined as real are real in their consequences.

This is more or less a "duh" than anything else. Of course, any real theory would include provisions for defining a situation as real or a set of criteria.

Sociology also approaches things from three different perspectives: functionalist, conflict and interactionist. These approaches all focus on different things, and there is no clearly superior or inferior one among them. This alone kicks the door of subjectivity wide open.

This is the scientific method, according to sociologists.

1. Identify research problem.
2. Review previous studies.
3. Form a hypothesis or research question.
4. Protect human participants.
5. Collect data.
6. Analyze data for validity and reliability.
7. Research report.

They admit the following limitations, but still claim their method is scientific.

1. Human behavior is complex.
2. Social behavior changes.
3. Research can influence behavior being studied.
4. Difficult for research to be "value-free."

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-03 06:17pm

So... My major in Political Science is discredited by default?

I think to an extent it shouldn't be referred to as a science, but in a way it is. We have theorums that are tested in the great big world and proved or disproved... Perhaps you can all come up with a better name for it?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-03 06:36pm

Sure, how about "Political Studies"?

The funny part is that scientists (real scientists, not social "scientists") aren't the ones encouraging the idea that something is only valid if it's a science. That's the kind of thinking that sociologists, psychologists and political "scientists" fall prey to. They think that the only way that what they do can be perceived as legitimate is to slap the "science" label on it. In the case of sociology, they just don't want to admit that what they do has no useful application beyond generating interesting statistics and trivia for game shows.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-03 06:51pm

While studying "Media and Politics" (which in 2 hours I've got an exam on) I have come across many interesting theorums that are scientifically and mathematically based, like thsoe that relate to the effectiveness of advertising etc. And yes Political Studies is probably a better idea.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-03 07:07pm

Such as? Do they define a ratio between the number of times an ad is run and the gross sales of the product?

The whole point behind science is that nature is predictable. It will always follow certain laws. Humans are under no such behavioral constraints. Every person is different, and group statistics can only take you so far.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-03 07:11pm

They relate to the effect of political advertising on elections. Similar theories relate to the effect of political debates etc.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-03 07:15pm

I don't see how those things could be quantified in any way, much less with any guarantees of the outcome, like say, Newton's laws of motion or the general theory of relativity.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-03 08:17pm

Let's put it this way: a science is known to be reliable when it can be used as the basis of engineering. Chemistry => chemical engineering. Physics => mechanical engineering. Geology => civil/geological engineering.

However, if social science is effective, then why is social engineering usually disastrous? The social sciences are generally judged against internally set standards and criteria, rather than empirical methods. If they were a legitimate science, social engineering would work. The "law of unintended consequences" was coined to describe social engineering. No one invokes that law when discussing chemical engineering.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-03 08:39pm

I didn't even know that there was such a thing as social engineering. What did it attempt to do?