Re: the arrogance of postmodern mumbo jumbo

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Michael Daunt: "Re: PROBING"
• Previous message: Errol Back-Cunningham: "Re: terms"
• Maybe in reply to: Stephen Barnard: "the arrogance of postmodern mumbo jumbo"
• Next in thread: CU Student: "Re: the arrogance of postmodern mumbo jumbo"

Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
> Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com> wrote:
>

[snip]

>
> But, I think there is still a legitimate argument to be made here,
> disentigrating the overly verbose lingo, that not only should we
> consider the impact of relativistic phenomena but also consider the
> effect the devolpment of newtonian physics and the beliefs of those
> incircled in these changing beliefs.

[snip]

Philip,

If I understand you correctly you are taking Sokal's thesis seriously.
Don't! It was outright parody. You have some interesting things to
say, but please, please don't tie them to Sokal's paper. I'm sure that
in due course we will be seeing earnest, jargon-laden postmodern papers
that cite Sokal without the slightest sense of irony.

Steve Barnard

• Next message: Michael Daunt: "Re: PROBING"
• Previous message: Errol Back-Cunningham: "Re: terms"
• Maybe in reply to: Stephen Barnard: "the arrogance of postmodern mumbo jumbo"
• Next in thread: CU Student: "Re: the arrogance of postmodern mumbo jumbo"