Steve Fuller is crying martyr to that horrible fascist, Norman Levitt, whose terrible sin against the intellectual in the 21st century was to point out that the sort of fashionable nonsense which Fuller is so capable of is, well, nonsense. That Fuller does this in what is supposed to be an eloge for Levitt is the height of indecency, beyond parody.
Late note: See Nick Matzke’s post on this.
Later: And Josh Rosenau’s post.
Much later: Go read the responses to Fuller’s post on his blog. Nearly everyone there is calling him, explicitly, an arsehole.
9 responses so far ↓
Bob O'H // October 28, 2009 at 8:37 pm |
That is just too funny. He admits he didn’t spot the Sokal hoax, and the last paragraph
Putting aside the poor taste, his ‘cyber-fascism’ does look like a description of places like Uncommon Descent.
Veronica Abbass // October 29, 2009 at 12:04 pm |
Should “horrible fascist” be in quotation marks? Is this Fuller’s description of Levitt?
386sx // October 29, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
Fuller briefly describes the Sokal hoax here…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nArnOwBtLZo
But somehow I think he gets it wrong, though I’m not really sure because I don’t know what the heck he’s saying! I’m not kidding!
Chris E // October 30, 2009 at 12:21 am |
Hm, John, have you ever seen John Dupré’s review of Levitt 1999 in The Sciences? It swayed me against at the time: John Dupré. “The fight for science and reason.” The Sciences, pages 40–45, March/April 2000. review of Prometheus Bedeviled: Science and the Contradictions of Contemporary Culture, Norman Levitt (1999).
Chris Schoen // October 30, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
I’m not sure I see why this is being spun as even an obit, let alone an elegy. This is one man reacting, on his own blog, to the death of another, with whom he has a history. Fuller comes off as petty, but within his rights to reaffirm he didn’t like the guy.
Levitt was no friend of philosophy of science. Not just Fuller received his dismissal, but Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend too, anyone who deigned to subject the activity of science to analysis. Fuller’s beef with that is genuine, even if he should have sat on his hands before typing “fascist.” (I speak as one who has more than once called advocates of scientific omnicompetence “totalitarian”).
Wes // October 31, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
Bullshit.
Levitt was far from perfect, but most of his targets fully deserved the treatment he gave them. STS has woefully porous borders and all kinds of frauds and liars have taken advantage of this to use the field to bolster ignorance, superstition, and political agendas. Levitt provided the critique from the outside. Rather than circle the wagons and engage in a petty turf war, STS needs to take a look inwards.
Fuller does not have a legitimate beef with Levitt because Fuller is not a legitimate voice in philosophy, history, or any other science studies field. He’s one of many hacks who have abused philosophy and history to attack, rather than critique, science.
John M. Lynch // November 2, 2009 at 6:35 am
Agreed. And can I say “agreed” again?
Fuller is a minor pox on HPS – I’ve yet to find anyone who takes him seriously.
Chris Schoen // November 2, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
Wes and John L, are you saying that even a hack cannot hold a valid opinion? Even a stopped clock…
It seems to me so far in this thread that the only defenses of Levitt’s writing are based not on what he said but on which side he is on, or on how much of a fool his critic is. Fighting ad hom with ad him is for schoolboys.
Wes, you wrote that most of his subjects deserved what they got–can you cite a single kind word by Levitt on any philosopher or sociologist of science?
DLC // November 2, 2009 at 5:01 pm |
Having read some of Fuller’s nonsense I have to agree. he’s not worth the time. Considering his latest, I think calling him a pox is an insult to pox.