6 ms·

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of flui

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... I'm having a hard time believing this can be anything other than satire.

pg 17y ago
There's an endless supply of this stuff. Or more precisely, a supply limited only by the publication needs of thousands of professors. Just search for the relevant buzzwords on Google Scholar. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=menstrual+poststructuralist http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=menstrual+poststructural... It's funny at first, but after a while just kind of draining.
sp332 17y ago
No, this is satire: "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgres... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair )
- krakensden 17y ago
  Read your link and the article- the quote about the sexism of E=MC^2 is the real thing.
ojbyrne 17y ago
I sort of dread the idea of defending post-modernism, but here's my opinion. There are some interesting ideas, but unfortunately it's become buried under reams and reams of mediocrity. But that's science, and that's how science has worked for a very, very long time. In the long run the mediocrity gets stripped away, and we're left with the interesting ideas. Phlogiston dominated scientific discourse for far longer than it needed to.
- anatoly 17y ago
  Postmodernism isn't science. You're right in that the mediocre stuff will fade and the interesting ideas will remain. Yet I have two counterpoints to offer. First, will postmodernism leave lasting ideas at all? Has its skepticism towards language, for example, led to anything new over what was given to us by Wittgenstein? Second, even if all the dross fades and disappears, isn't it a shame about all those years when it dominated humanities and much of philosophy? What kind of genuinely interesting ideas were never explored because of that domination?
  - davidmathers 17y ago
    Has its skepticism towards language, for example, led to anything new over what was given to us by Wittgenstein? This is my question exactly. I would like to see a short intro to postmodernism that starts with Wittgenstein and explains in relatively clear language what new insights it produced. I don't know if it's safe or unsafe to assume that the postmodernists read Wittgenstein.
Dilpil 17y ago
Believe it.
xtho 17y ago
At a certain point in history, those sentences were capable of initiating a new way of thinking that was impossible before. 30 years later, Mr. Dawkins enjoys himself beating a dead horse.
- tybris 17y ago
  What point in history do you refer to?
  - xtho 17y ago
    30 to 40 years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray
- anatoly 17y ago
  Precisely. You could say that those sentences filled a much-needed gap.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    I do not often literally laugh out loud while reading HN. Today, I did. :)
silentbicycle 17y ago
Using magical thinking to reason about scientific phenomena sounds just as out of place as using the scientific method to judge art.
crux_ 17y ago
It's not satire: it is metaphor. Post-modernism (in the sense of this type of thing, anyway) arose and mostly deals with literature, where imagery, symbolism, and metaphor are the main carriers of meaning rather than spelling things out literally. Also, its purpose isn't so much to interpret the work itself as it is to look through it and see what it says about the writer and the reader. In this case, it's the same thing applied to science rather than a novel, and while it might not be very relevant to fluid mechanics, it might be saying something worthwhile about scientists and gender roles (in a stylised and heavily symbolic way) once put back into context. That said, 90% of everything is crap and I've no doubt that this is too; it does certainly seem to be on the surface. Edit: I'm different than that other 'crux' who is also standing up for postmodernism here. Odd coincidence!
- jibiki 17y ago
  > it is metaphor. For what? > it might be saying something worthwhile about scientists and gender roles (in a stylised and heavily symbolic way) once put back into context. Please, humor us. What might that "something worthwhile" be?
  - crux_ 17y ago
    > For what? Are you saying the language in the quote above isn't loaded down with symbolic and metaphorical imagery? Or, more specifically, that it isn't drawing metaphorical parallels, rather than literal ones, between physical concepts and cultural ones? > Please, humor us. What might that "something worthwhile" be? Please, spare me your sarcasm and scare quotes. Should I interpret your scepticism as a belief that there is nothing at all worthwhile to say about gender and culture in science?
    - jibiki 17y ago
      > Are you saying the language in the quote above isn't loaded down with symbolic and metaphorical imagery? Or, more specifically, that it isn't drawing metaphorical parallels, rather than literal ones, between physical concepts and cultural ones? No, I'm asking what her statement is a metaphor for. A conversation along these lines should look like the following: Crux: "I wouldn't take that vacation if I were you. A rolling stone gathers no moss." Jib: "What do rolling stones have to do with anything?" Crux: "I was speaking metaphorically. What I mean is that as long as you keep going (like the stone,) you'll keep your momentum (won't gather moss.)" > Should I interpret your scepticism as a belief that there is nothing at all worthwhile to say about gender and culture in science? No, just that her quote isn't saying anything worthwhile about gender and culture in science. The fact that you can't identify anything it even "might" be saying is evidence for this. In general, our conversation seems to fit the following pattern: A: "There are many zorks in this world." B: "Really? Name one." A: "Are you saying there's no such thing as a zork? Prove it!" B: "..."

pg 17y ago

There's an endless supply of this stuff. Or more precisely, a supply limited only by the publication needs of thousands of professors. Just search for the relevant buzzwords on Google Scholar. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=menstrual+poststructuralist http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=menstrual+poststructural... It's funny at first, but after a while just kind of draining.

sp332 17y ago

No, this is satire: "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgres... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair )

krakensden 17y ago
Read your link and the article- the quote about the sexism of E=MC^2 is the real thing.

ojbyrne 17y ago

I sort of dread the idea of defending post-modernism, but here's my opinion. There are some interesting ideas, but unfortunately it's become buried under reams and reams of mediocrity. But that's science, and that's how science has worked for a very, very long time. In the long run the mediocrity gets stripped away, and we're left with the interesting ideas. Phlogiston dominated scientific discourse for far longer than it needed to.

anatoly 17y ago
Postmodernism isn't science. You're right in that the mediocre stuff will fade and the interesting ideas will remain. Yet I have two counterpoints to offer. First, will postmodernism leave lasting ideas at all? Has its skepticism towards language, for example, led to anything new over what was given to us by Wittgenstein? Second, even if all the dross fades and disappears, isn't it a shame about all those years when it dominated humanities and much of philosophy? What kind of genuinely interesting ideas were never explored because of that domination?
- davidmathers 17y ago
  Has its skepticism towards language, for example, led to anything new over what was given to us by Wittgenstein? This is my question exactly. I would like to see a short intro to postmodernism that starts with Wittgenstein and explains in relatively clear language what new insights it produced. I don't know if it's safe or unsafe to assume that the postmodernists read Wittgenstein.

Dilpil 17y ago

Believe it.

xtho 17y ago

At a certain point in history, those sentences were capable of initiating a new way of thinking that was impossible before. 30 years later, Mr. Dawkins enjoys himself beating a dead horse.

tybris 17y ago
What point in history do you refer to?
- xtho 17y ago
  30 to 40 years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray
anatoly 17y ago
Precisely. You could say that those sentences filled a much-needed gap.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  I do not often literally laugh out loud while reading HN. Today, I did. :)

silentbicycle 17y ago

Using magical thinking to reason about scientific phenomena sounds just as out of place as using the scientific method to judge art.

crux_ 17y ago

It's not satire: it is metaphor. Post-modernism (in the sense of this type of thing, anyway) arose and mostly deals with literature, where imagery, symbolism, and metaphor are the main carriers of meaning rather than spelling things out literally. Also, its purpose isn't so much to interpret the work itself as it is to look through it and see what it says about the writer and the reader. In this case, it's the same thing applied to science rather than a novel, and while it might not be very relevant to fluid mechanics, it might be saying something worthwhile about scientists and gender roles (in a stylised and heavily symbolic way) once put back into context. That said, 90% of everything is crap and I've no doubt that this is too; it does certainly seem to be on the surface. Edit: I'm different than that other 'crux' who is also standing up for postmodernism here. Odd coincidence!

jibiki 17y ago
> it is metaphor. For what? > it might be saying something worthwhile about scientists and gender roles (in a stylised and heavily symbolic way) once put back into context. Please, humor us. What might that "something worthwhile" be?
- crux_ 17y ago
  > For what? Are you saying the language in the quote above isn't loaded down with symbolic and metaphorical imagery? Or, more specifically, that it isn't drawing metaphorical parallels, rather than literal ones, between physical concepts and cultural ones? > Please, humor us. What might that "something worthwhile" be? Please, spare me your sarcasm and scare quotes. Should I interpret your scepticism as a belief that there is nothing at all worthwhile to say about gender and culture in science?
  - jibiki 17y ago
    > Are you saying the language in the quote above isn't loaded down with symbolic and metaphorical imagery? Or, more specifically, that it isn't drawing metaphorical parallels, rather than literal ones, between physical concepts and cultural ones? No, I'm asking what her statement is a metaphor for. A conversation along these lines should look like the following: Crux: "I wouldn't take that vacation if I were you. A rolling stone gathers no moss." Jib: "What do rolling stones have to do with anything?" Crux: "I was speaking metaphorically. What I mean is that as long as you keep going (like the stone,) you'll keep your momentum (won't gather moss.)" > Should I interpret your scepticism as a belief that there is nothing at all worthwhile to say about gender and culture in science? No, just that her quote isn't saying anything worthwhile about gender and culture in science. The fact that you can't identify anything it even "might" be saying is evidence for this. In general, our conversation seems to fit the following pattern: A: "There are many zorks in this world." B: "Really? Name one." A: "Are you saying there's no such thing as a zork? Prove it!" B: "..."