Comments on: Windschuttle Sokaled

By: John Whitworth

John Whitworth — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:48:19 +0000

My poem ‘The Girlie Gangs’ was not meant to be anti-women at all. It was really about my daughters and their friends. Probably Australian ladies don’t behave in that way but I’m talking about the wild west of Kent in England. The point about the rugby songs is that girtls didn’t use to do this sort of thing but now they do and bloody good for them. As I live in a household where the only other male is a cat (or at least he was once) so I mind my Ps and Qs.

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:04:59 +0000

Sokal on Argyros [footnote 61 on p. 134 of "Beyond the hoax"]

…. Argyros goes on to say “Linearity tends to be deterministic in a Laplacian way. Even if a linear system evolves, its evolution is discrete and sequential. Therefore, the time of linear systems is eotemporal, succession without preferred direction.”

(Sokal adds): Every one of these statements is wrong. The dichotomies linear/nonlinear, deterministic/stochastic, discrete-time/continuous time, time-reversal-invariant/time-reversal-noninvariant are COMPLETELY UNRELATED; all 16 possible combinations are possible.

(Sokal comments further on Argyros’s other mathematical errors and wonders why Gross & Levitt esteem Alexander Argyros’s maths above that of N. Katharine Hayles.)

By: Adrien

Adrien — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:32:00 +0000

I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself Adrien.
.
Cheers Klaus. But on a more serious note. Does your cat actually enjoy being covered in food dye?

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:03:14 +0000

Nick, I was also going to mention Constructivism in art.

By: klaus k

klaus k — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:39:08 +0000

I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself Adrien.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:44:11 +0000

There’s also Constructivism of course, which was the only one I knew of until a few days ago

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:29:45 +0000

Klaus
.
I believe I made some very serious points. But it’s probably better to provide a link to the research institute which most influences me on these matters do that you know exactly how serious I am.

By: klaus k

klaus k — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:18:15 +0000

Adrien, constructivism is a term associated in educational theory with Piaget. Further, social constructivism is used by educational researchers interested in the theories of Vygotsky.

Neither of these has anything much to do with social construction (sometimes also called constructivism) as it’s understood in the social sciences – which is introduced as a concept by Berger and Luckmann in 1966, who were actually influenced by the social phenomenology of Schutz (who should also be familiar to those who’ve read Habermas).

As far as I know, these different uses of similar terminology developed independently and refer to totally distinct philosophies. If the two do meet, it is probably only in the heads of second year education students confused by the similarity between terms (and possibly wikipedia authors – I haven’t had a look). My argument here is, to the best of my knowledge, totally uncontroversial. Any teachers/educational researchers want to confirm that for me?

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:59:41 +0000

Of course I should add to be fair that altho’ often words have many meanings and sometimes (when used by those who are not authorized) no meaning. Other words have too many meanings and we should cut some off.
.
Especially #4.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:55:08 +0000

Care to elaborate?
.
Methinks you’re inviting me into the Mandelbrot Labyrinth for a bit of taxonomical gymnastics. Wherein I will be led to the Minotaur who will dodge the sword by claiming the definition of this or that term has changed in the last 30 seconds and refusing to clarify terms for the next half-minute. One is allowed to do certain things like, for example, talk of Universals, if one is licensed to do so, like an oft-quoted fella name of Jack. But should someone else do it, someone who is not licensed then it’s illegitimate.
.
Clever game y’see.
.
Use a word and we say: “Well it doesn’t mean that or it means a lot of different stuff and dictionaries are simply tools of phallo-capitalist oppressive discourse.” And of course when cornered and asked to defend some point: aka so and so is/is not a [insert favourite ism here] there’s the tendency to resort to passata-sotto and claim it’s just a flesh wound.
.
Well could I prise de fer and how. But I have an appointment at the weekly JPF meeting. We are the people who act, we don’t just talk and I have a motion to move. Typically, talk of isms fills me with the urge.