4 ms·

Anyone interested in the arts vs sciences debate should read this fantastic book as well as that fantastic article: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intellectual-Impost

Anyone interested in the arts vs sciences debate should read this fantastic book as well as that fantastic article: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intellectual-Impostures-Jean-Bricmont/dp/1861976313 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intellectual-Impostures-Jean-Bricmon... I've studied history, art history and computing science at graduate level, and have to say I agree 100% with this engineer's statement: "The quality of the actual analysis of various literary works varies tremendously and must be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I find most of it highly questionable. Buried in the muck, however, are a set of important and interesting ideas [...]" As a trolling aside, I found the computing science degree far easier than the arts ones...

vixen99 13y ago
Sorry about a'me too' but I'd like to second that suggestion because it is indeed a shocking revelation of the nonsense some people have peddled.
dvanduzer 13y ago
Difficulty in earning a degree is usually a function of program, and not necessarily institution.
voyou 13y ago
I'm not convinced a book in which two scientists attempt to polemicise against humanities academics not understanding science, and end up demonstrating that they don't understand a number of authors in the humanities, is a particularly useful contribution to a discussion of the relationship between the arts and the sciences.
- zwischenzug 13y ago
  Any evidence for your statement? This seems to be the opposite of the book's spirit. What's interesting is the authors they leave alone...
anaphor 13y ago
This one is pretty good too: http://www.amazon.ca/The-Social-Construction-What-Hacking/dp/0674004124 http://www.amazon.ca/The-Social-Construction-What-Hacking/dp... Ian Hacking has some engineering cred too given that he's written several great books about statistics that don't skimp on the math too much.
slurry 13y ago
That book is essentially worthless. Its methodology is to read through philosophers and literary critics, find places where they talk about science, evaluate whether they talk about science accurately, and when they do not, to dismiss their work. Picking out bad analogies and inapposite asides is not a good use of anyone's time.
- zwischenzug 13y ago
  You're wrong. Again, the book deals with this point directly. - "Their talk" of science is not merely inaccurate, it is _disingenuous_ - This disingenuousness raises questions about the authors' sincerity (which the authors of Intellectual Impostures are at pains to limit to the scientific areas, but could well be extended) - They do not "dismiss the work" of the authors - They are at pains to try and work out what the authors might have meant (including unpicking "bad analogies" or "inappropriate asides". Once again I'm required to ask for evidence of this from someone likely not to have actually read the book closely.
  - slurry 13y ago
    I'd be happy to amend "inaccurate" to "disingenuous" and "dismiss the work" to "try and work out what the authors might have meant [and then dismiss]". I don't at all mind making those semantic adjustments. But the point still stands, as you put it, that "the authors of Intellectual Impostures are at pains to limit [their inquiry] to the scientific areas." What is the use of that? I mean, sure, it's fine for the Bruno Latour chapter, because Latour's work is actually on science. But what's the point of demonstrating that Irigaray mangles fluid mechanics and Lacan mangles topology, in books that aren't about fluid mechanics or topology? Who cares? Pointing it out isn't wrong per se. But it also, despite Bricmont's extensive handwaving, doesn't prove anything worthwhile.
    - zwischenzug 13y ago
      Because they use their supposed knowledge of maths (in Lacan's case) to intimidate the reader into thinking they're saying something profound, and that it's based on an understanding of mathematics. This is not my supposition. I had these very arguments with literary theorists at university. They preferred to believe Lacan's mathematical credentials over mine.

vixen99 13y ago

Sorry about a'me too' but I'd like to second that suggestion because it is indeed a shocking revelation of the nonsense some people have peddled.

dvanduzer 13y ago

Difficulty in earning a degree is usually a function of program, and not necessarily institution.

voyou 13y ago

I'm not convinced a book in which two scientists attempt to polemicise against humanities academics not understanding science, and end up demonstrating that they don't understand a number of authors in the humanities, is a particularly useful contribution to a discussion of the relationship between the arts and the sciences.

zwischenzug 13y ago
Any evidence for your statement? This seems to be the opposite of the book's spirit. What's interesting is the authors they leave alone...

anaphor 13y ago

This one is pretty good too: http://www.amazon.ca/The-Social-Construction-What-Hacking/dp/0674004124 http://www.amazon.ca/The-Social-Construction-What-Hacking/dp... Ian Hacking has some engineering cred too given that he's written several great books about statistics that don't skimp on the math too much.

slurry 13y ago

That book is essentially worthless. Its methodology is to read through philosophers and literary critics, find places where they talk about science, evaluate whether they talk about science accurately, and when they do not, to dismiss their work. Picking out bad analogies and inapposite asides is not a good use of anyone's time.

zwischenzug 13y ago
You're wrong. Again, the book deals with this point directly. - "Their talk" of science is not merely inaccurate, it is _disingenuous_ - This disingenuousness raises questions about the authors' sincerity (which the authors of Intellectual Impostures are at pains to limit to the scientific areas, but could well be extended) - They do not "dismiss the work" of the authors - They are at pains to try and work out what the authors might have meant (including unpicking "bad analogies" or "inappropriate asides". Once again I'm required to ask for evidence of this from someone likely not to have actually read the book closely.
- slurry 13y ago
  I'd be happy to amend "inaccurate" to "disingenuous" and "dismiss the work" to "try and work out what the authors might have meant [and then dismiss]". I don't at all mind making those semantic adjustments. But the point still stands, as you put it, that "the authors of Intellectual Impostures are at pains to limit [their inquiry] to the scientific areas." What is the use of that? I mean, sure, it's fine for the Bruno Latour chapter, because Latour's work is actually on science. But what's the point of demonstrating that Irigaray mangles fluid mechanics and Lacan mangles topology, in books that aren't about fluid mechanics or topology? Who cares? Pointing it out isn't wrong per se. But it also, despite Bricmont's extensive handwaving, doesn't prove anything worthwhile.
  - zwischenzug 13y ago
    Because they use their supposed knowledge of maths (in Lacan's case) to intimidate the reader into thinking they're saying something profound, and that it's based on an understanding of mathematics. This is not my supposition. I had these very arguments with literary theorists at university. They preferred to believe Lacan's mathematical credentials over mine.