The Sokal affair was very funny. And the book on it is excellent. For those who like this sort of thing - you should know that somebody ceated a random generator which will spit out pretentious (yet plausible) pseudo philosophical essays at the click of the button. Really clever stuff...
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Now - I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins. His books on evolution are the best scientific writing I have come across. Yet - I find his criticisms of religion to be a little facile (even though I am an atheist myself). It seems as if he is making a religion out of his atheism. And to me that is dumb.
Anyway - I too am sceptical of alot of the feminist deconstructions of science. Yet - there are exceptions. I remember being given the following essay to read as part of a History of Science course. After seeing the title - I nearly didn't bother reading it. Since it seemed like some dumb feminist shit. I wasn't in the habit of attending lectures much back then. So - I very nearly didn't bother reading it.
Yet, luckily I did...
It turns out there is some interesting shit here. It seems that alot of hidden (and subconscious) stereotyping has gone into the scientific (and cultural) portrayals of how a sperm penetrates an egg in the biology of human reproduction.
It is really interesting stuff. And can be basically filed under - everything you think you know about the egg and the sperm is wrong.
Due to cultural stereotypes of male/female behaviour.
It is fascinating to see how science (which is supposed to be objective) can be led astray by such stereotypes.
http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~daubin/cours...gSperm.pdf
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Now - I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins. His books on evolution are the best scientific writing I have come across. Yet - I find his criticisms of religion to be a little facile (even though I am an atheist myself). It seems as if he is making a religion out of his atheism. And to me that is dumb.
Anyway - I too am sceptical of alot of the feminist deconstructions of science. Yet - there are exceptions. I remember being given the following essay to read as part of a History of Science course. After seeing the title - I nearly didn't bother reading it. Since it seemed like some dumb feminist shit. I wasn't in the habit of attending lectures much back then. So - I very nearly didn't bother reading it.
Yet, luckily I did...
It turns out there is some interesting shit here. It seems that alot of hidden (and subconscious) stereotyping has gone into the scientific (and cultural) portrayals of how a sperm penetrates an egg in the biology of human reproduction.
It is really interesting stuff. And can be basically filed under - everything you think you know about the egg and the sperm is wrong.
Due to cultural stereotypes of male/female behaviour.
It is fascinating to see how science (which is supposed to be objective) can be led astray by such stereotypes.
http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~daubin/cours...gSperm.pdf