More Fuller Two
Back to Fuller. Same thread at Michael’s place. Notice a certain tension in the main post. Third para:
In particular, I am a little disturbed by the ease with which humanists and social scientists justify deference to scientific expertise, almost in a ‘good fences make good neighbours’ vain [he means vein] (Stanley Fish comes to mind in criticism, but analytic philosophy and sociology of science have their own versions of this argument). In this respect, ‘our’ side pulled its punches in the Science Wars when it refused to come out and say that the scientific establishment may not be the final word on what science is, let alone what it ought to be. I guess we just never got over the embarrassment of the Sokal Affair.
Never mind for now all there is to wonder at in that passage. Just consider these from para four and para seven:
You might want to read what I actually say – in print, in the trial, and in the written expert report I submitted before the trial…I should say that my status as an expert in the trial had nothing to do with the textbooks under scrutiny.
He seems happy enough about referring to his own putative expertise, but curls the lip at ‘deference’ (loaded word) to scientific expertise.
(Something else I noticed, just in passing – he certainly doesn’t write very well on the fly. Compare his comments with P Z Myers’s, for instance. Both were writing quickly, but one did it well and the other pretty badly. In fact often very badly – leaving out crucial words that are needed to make sense of what he is saying, for instance.)
Some other weird items.
Frankly, I think the public disposition of the Dover case is over-influenced by hatred of Bush and especially fear of the role of fundamentalist Christians in shaping the Bush agenda. (I have in mind here the propaganda campaign being waged on webpages associated with the ACLU: Don’t they have more important civil rights violations in the US to worry about?) I’m certainly no fan of Bush, and have never even voted for a Republican, but I don’t think that this trial is the right place to ‘send a message’ to Bush. Why not work instead toward getting an electable Democrat – perhaps even one that can relate to the vast numbers of religious folks in the US, as the liberal evangelist Jim Wallis (‘God’s Politics’) suggests?
Er? What’s he talking about? Why not who ‘work instead toward getting an electable Democrat’? Us? Instead of talking about what was wrong with his testimony at Dover? Because that’s not what we’re doing, we’re doing something else. What’s the point of asking why not do something completely different?
In fact, the scientists these days who most loudly flaunt their anti-Christian, atheist colours can’t escape smuggling some kind of theistically inspired thought, including James Watson’s desires to play God…But even evolution’s staunchest defenders have remarked on the strong iconic role that Darwin continues to play in this field, which is quite unusual in the natural sciences. An important reason is the politically correct lesson that his life teaches: the idea that science causes you to lose your faith. Newton, unfortunately, thought his theory confirmed his reading of the Bible. Not very politically correct.
Whaat? Politically correct? When did Bill O’Reilly enter the discussion, and why? Politically correct where, according to whom, in which circles?
In the next century, historians will marvel at the ease with which we assume that it’s psychologically credible to think that religious and scientific views can be so neatly separated from each other. This is just our old Catholic friend, the double truth doctrine, dressed up in political correctness.
Same again only more so.
And so on. As you’ll have seen if you read it – as some or perhaps all of you already have – it’s all like that – along with a thick frosting of ineffable condescension poured over everything, which is quite surreal given the quality of the comments from the opponents compared to his own. He gives the impression, on top of everything else, of being a thoroughly unpleasant character.
Fuller’s full of himself. I thought these were the best bits:
“Have you heard of Google?”
“So, the fact that contemporary ID is not well-supported by research matters much less to me than its potential for inspiring new directions in the scientific imagination.”
Couldn’t the same be said for alien abduction “theories”? Maybe high schoolers need to be taught that stuff, too. And then there’s the flying spaghetti monster…
I am, as you know, a very tolerant person.
But how in hell does Steve get to where he is and get attention with such wooly thinking?
Does he believe it? Is he a complete con-man?
Has he ever contributed anything beyond the anti-science stuff?
I wonder if I am missing something.
Surely the scholar cannot be that naked?
Yeah, isn’t that great about the “not well-supported by research”? Well no wonder he’s an expert!
Good questions. Yes, the scholar can be that naked. I know that from reading Sandra Harding. She makes Fuller look – semi-clothed.
“In this respect,’our’ side pulled its punches in the Science Wars when it refused to come out and say that the scientific establishment may not be the final word on what science is, let alone what it ought to be.”
The Kansas school board apparently took this to heart when it redefined science in such a way as to not limit it to natural explanations.
One can modify the old joke:
what is 2+2
engineer – precisely 4.0
lawyer,economist,Mr.Fuller – what do you want it to be?
“In the next century, historians will marvel …”
That’s a common rhetorical trick I really hate. It tries to short cut the point under discussion by approaching it as if it had all been settled long ago.
If he’s a conscious con-man, then I must say he’s playing the part very well, in the sense of never conceding any points to his opponents or showing the slightest sign that even the most watertight arguments demolishing everything he says cause him even the tiniest internal waver.
Gee, I wish MY parents had said to me every morning before I set off for school “… and remember, Steve, it doesn’t matter what anyone else says, or how well they can argue a point – you are always and will always be right.”
I’d have looked my parents straight in the eye (assuming they had at least one between them) and said “Hey, how many times do I gotta tell you: my name ain’t Steve!”
“… and remember, Steve, it doesn’t matter what anyone else says, or how well they can argue a point – you are always and will always be right.”
High self-esteem, that’s all.
He’s a sociologist…
(Smacks forehead in astonishment) – of course! He’s a sociologist, a profession(?)which is arguably even more desperate to be thought scientific than the ID-ers. No wonder he’s on their side!!!
Say ! Non-believers – still beating the wife ??
OK, so it’s not the most sophisitcated repsonse, but I have limited time in my lunchbreak for my intelligence to be insulted by this patent snake-oilster.
Michael Bérubé and most of you are clearly a lot more patient than I … back over to you ..
OB, I disagreed with your first post about Fuller, but this post convinces me. The man is an idiot. The only thing I’d read of his — the Kuhn book — I now see in a different light. I didn’t know he was driven by, uh, his belief in the demiurge.
Well thanks for saying so, roger!
By the way, you sociologist-teasers – you do remember that the webmaster is a sociologist, right? He could ban you and no one would be the wiser…
Sociology is, as a discipline and a collective practice, nothing more than an expanding pustule on the body of the humanities. Its fundamental assertion is that there is something magically ‘special’ about ‘modern’ societies which requires them to be studied through a lens which is uniquely ‘scientific’. While the ‘founding fathers’ [telling phrase] of the discipline had some interesting claims, most of them could comfortably have been accommodated under the rubric of moral philosophy. As sociology has expanded into ‘social theory’ and ‘critical studies’, that remains the case, while the other half of the profession are in thrall to the governments and other powerful bodies who pay them money to ask people stupid questions and come up with policy suggestions which are ignored 99.9% of the time… And are frequently bloody awful ideas when they’re not…
When you look at what sociology claims, historically, to have been for, and what it has actually achieved, you can only laugh…
Who’s teasing?
Well, I meant teasing in the broad sense, the Mitfordian sense, in which it can be a kind of teasing synonym for serious – sometimes very serious – criticism.
Anyway of course the sociologist webmaster won’t actually ban you (that was only a tease) because he doesn’t read B&W.