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
Humor Customers! Oy! 4 Jun 2009 I used to run a service department so that’s why this site amuses me so much. Yeah, I know I’m probably fifteen years behind everyone else: The World: America’s Theme Park (Note: this takes place at our cafe in Kuranda, Australia.) Tourist: “Lady, how about we make a deal? I… Read More
Accommodationism Can Religion Accommodate Science? 12 Feb 201420 Feb 2014 Recent posts and stuff online has led me to suspect it would be worthwhile my writing a book on this topic, as short posts often lead to misunderstandings and trolls. I’ve started sketching out the contents, and putting in various posts from here to use as a skeleton, but I… Read More
Philosophy My Absent Career 13: Critical mass 17 Jan 202318 Jan 2023 Having taught critical reasoning and studied the usual logic for philosophy undergrads, I felt that I had a pretty good understanding of logic and reasoning, at least without getting into modal logics and other such aberrations. Not for the first or last time I mistook confidence for competence. Neil Thomason,… 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.