De mortuis nil nisi bonum 28 Oct 2009 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. Philosophy Science Social evolution
Academe David Hull is dead 6 Nov 2010 Updated to include new links… My mentor, hero and I hope friend, David Lee Hull died on the morning of 11 August 2010, at the age of 75. If not for the fact that David marked my masters thesis and remarked that he hoped to see some of it published,… Read More
Epistemology The use of history by philosophers 28 Aug 2009 So I was doing my usual schtick of criticising the use of history by a philosopher (in this case a French philosopher named Canguilhem), when I was asked the following question by one Lenny Moss: “So who do you think uses history properly in philosophy?” I flapped my mouth a… Read More
Censorship The great accommodationism debate 26 Jun 2009 I’ve stayed away from the current round of accusations and counteraccusations about accomodationism between religion and science. This is because I am a wishy washy Chamberlainist fencesitting Laodicean. But I am impressed by a few bloggers’ posts on the matter. First, what’s the background? Read More
That is just too funny. He admits he didn’t spot the Sokal hoax, and the last paragraph I believe that Levitt’s ultimate claim to fame may rest on his having been as a pioneer of cyber-fascism, whereby a certain well-educated but (for whatever reason) academically disenfranchised group of people have managed to create their own parallel universe of what is right and wrong in matters of science, which is backed up (at least at the moment) by nothing more than a steady stream of invective. Their resentment demands a scapegoat — and ‘postmodernists’ function as Jews had previously. Putting aside the poor taste, his ‘cyber-fascism’ does look like a description of places like Uncommon Descent.
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!
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).
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”).
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.
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. Agreed. And can I say “agreed” again? Fuller is a minor pox on HPS – I’ve yet to find anyone who takes him seriously.
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?
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.