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
Philosophy My Absent Career 3: Education and the failure of explanations 7 Dec 20221 Jan 2023 One of the things that causes Aspies problems is that you have no independent idea of your own abilities. In my case, Neither my parents, nor my teachers, nor my friends, confirmed to me any intelligence on my part, and while I had the sneaking suspicion that were the aliens… Read More
Administrative Travel Diary 13: Berkeley talk 6 Nov 2009 Well, yet again I have utterly utterly failed to embarrass my university by making an idiot of myself in public. In short, the talk (on the Essentialism Myth) to the Vertebrate Zoology crowd at Berkeley went very well I am told. I believe them because instead of sending me on… Read More
Accommodationism Accommodating science: Geology and Time 27 Feb 20142 Mar 2014 Some religions have no real view of history, while others hold to some kind of eternal cycle, but the western religions have a narrative with a beginning middle and end. And in the best known version of this – Christianity, what else? – history is given as a very short… 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.