Bekijk Volledige Versie : "The Parallel Realities of Modern Science & islam"
The Phoenix
29-12-10, 18:18
"The Parallel Realities of Modern Science & islam" by Jalees Rehman : Assistant professor in medicine : University of Chicago "
Source : The Huttington Post ; Dec 209, 2010 :
IslamiCity.com - The Parallel Realities of Modern Science and Islam (http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=HP1012-4406)
A "sacred science" would indeed permit the integration of spiritual knowledge and scientific knowledge, but in practice, such a re-interpretation of the nature of "science" is not practical.
The Parallel Realities of Modern Science and Islam
12/29/2010 - Science Religious - Article Ref: HP1012-4406
Number of comments:
By: Jalees Rehman
Huffington Post* -
ShareThis
"Islamic Science" -- I often encounter this expression when I meet fellow Muslims at social events and I state that I am a scientist during the perfunctory revealing of professions. Not infrequently, my discussion partners start talking about "Islamic Science" with a certain degree of nostalgia and pride, because for them it conjures up the names and works of Muslim scientists such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Biruni (Alberonius) who lived in the 10th and 11th centuries C.E. It is important to realize that they are just two of the most famous representatives of the large scientific enterprise that has flourished in Muslim history.
As shown by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, one of the world's foremost contemporary Muslim philosophers, Muslim scientists have pursued scientific research since the 8th century C.E., covering a vast range of disciplines ranging from astronomy and mineralogy to zoology and the medical sciences. However, the expression "Islamic Science" does not necessarily only refer to the fact that these scientists were Muslims. Instead, as suggested by another leading contemporary Muslim philosopher of science, Osman Bakar, the expression "Islamic Science" characterizes sciences "that were directly based upon and conceptually in harmony with the belief system of Islam."
Nasr and Bakar contrast such "Islamic Science" with the modern science which emanated from Europe in the 17th century C.E. and has since become the dominant force of scientific inquiry in the world. In their view, modern science is nearly exclusively based on a rationalist and materialist view of the world, and therefore does not require that the scientific methodology and interpretation are integrated with any faith-based system. The dominance of modern science resulted in the decline of the more traditional "Islamic Science", because even though numerous Muslims have continued to work as scientists, they no longer try to harmonize their scientific findings with the sacred concepts in traditional Islamic thought. Bakar and Nasr emphasize that modern science is not a value-free approach to knowledge, and that it carries within itself a rejection of the sacred dimension of knowledge. In Nasr's view, modern science has monopolized the concept of science itself, whereas traditionally, science was a much more generalized term (derived from the Latin scientia = knowledge) that permitted the integration of the sacred with scientific concepts. He calls for a restoration of a more comprehensive "sacred science", which would unify the wisdom and knowledge of all faiths with that of scientific inquiry.
I first encountered Nasr's ideas as a university student and became enamored with the possibility of unifying the process of scientific inquiry with faith and spirituality. This was probably a reflection of a basic human desire to integrate and unify knowledge. I had already experienced a similar excitement in the late 80s when fractals and chaos theory were becoming fashionable in popular culture. I still remember that in my German high school, those of us who were science geeks would sit down during recess and talk about the beauty of a Grand Unified Theory of particle physics or how chaos theory would allow us to unite biology, chemistry and physics. We did not have any clue as to what "chaos theory" or the Grand Unified Theory actually entailed, but we were simply enthralled by the idea of unifying and integrating the various sciences with a few basic mathematical equations. So when I read Nasr's books in the 90s, I felt that the "scientia sacra" (sacred science) would allow for an even more comprehensive integration of knowledge.
I grew up as a Muslim with an interest in Islamic thought and philosophy, and I also had a passion for the natural sciences. But I had not really given much thought to the possibility that these two domains of knowledge could be integrated. In many ways, Nasr's ideas were quite inspiring, because he emphasized that Islam was not only compatible with science, but actually encouraged scientific inquiry.
It was only when I became a scientist that I realized the challenge of actually unifying two bodies of knowledge that at their very core are completely distinct. Modern scientific knowledge consists of theories and models that are based on results of experiments which empirically test specific hypotheses. Spiritual knowledge is based on the study of sacred scriptures and metaphysical experiences. This fundamental disparity between modern science and spirituality results in a very different view of reality, as has been eloquently shown in Taner Edis' excellent book An Illusion of Harmony, and unifying modern science and spirituality seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Nasr's approach of transforming the modern concept of "science" to a more traditional, pre-modern and expansive view of science would indeed allow for a resolution of the disparity.
A "sacred science" would indeed permit the integration of spiritual knowledge and scientific knowledge, but in practice, such a re-interpretation of the nature of "science" is not practical. During the last centuries, modern science has developed its own methodologies of how experiments are conducted and interpreted and these processes are constantly undergoing change. Globally speaking, modern scientists hail from very different cultures and speak different native languages, but share common conceptions of the nature of science and scientific experiments so that they can communicate results to each other. It is not uncommon at a scientific conference to have speakers from Japan, Germany and the USA give presentations in the same session and have some degree of consensus as to the nature and interpretations of their results.
If a group of scientists began to redefine their basic conception of science, so that it would allow for the integration of sacred knowledge, would they still be able to communicate scientific knowledge with colleagues who maintained the current modern day definition of science? Since "sacred knowledge" is defined so differently even by individuals within a single faith, how would scientists who incorporate "sacred knowledge" into their scientific inquiry share their results with colleagues who have a very different concept of "sacred knowledge" or perhaps even reject it completely?
These practical considerations have not deterred many contemporary Muslim scientists and philosophers and they are still actively trying to develop practical approaches to a modern day "Islamic Science". However, there are also other voices that see modern science and religion as two distinct bodies of knowledge that allow us to view different but complementary aspects of reality. We do not advocate a unification of knowledge, but a form of mutual respect and dialogue so that each body of knowledge can draw from their partner's strengths and wisdom.
Source: The Huffington Post - Jalees Rehman, Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago
The Alchemist
29-12-10, 20:02
_I_ Modern science itself thanks her own very existence to muslims : the latters were the onesw ho invented the experimental empirical grounds of modern science , not F.Bacon, thanks to the islamic experience, practice , hard work, ...spirit & essence that elevates the use of reason , the seeking of knwoledge in the larger sense, work, practice, experience , constant search .... to the level of religious duties, to the level of worship of God :
in the sense : the more belief +work, experience, practice, knowledge ,constant search ; the closer one can get to islam & thus to God :
true science is therefore & worship of God when it's liberated from materialism as an ideology & from its materialistic mechanical paradigms such as that dead "newtonian _cartesian" one !
!
_II_Materialism is just a vision of Man, life , the world, the universe ....a paradigm that excludes all other potential paradigms : materialism as an ideology dominates nowadays in exact science, in human sciences .....= dictatorship & totalitarianism of materialism at those levels !
_III_ Islam is the one & only universal belief can be combined with science thus like no other :
as materialistic philosophy feeds back science & vice versa , idem dito for buddhism, taoism, hinduism, ...in relation to science & vice versa, so can islam do that too & like no other !
_IV_ Science is just a representation of reality, a form of culture, a social activity, practiced by scientists humans via their own cultural social biological psychological ideological & other grounds :
Objectivity does therefore not exist , not even at the level of exact sciences, let alone elsewhere :
universal true objective islam enables us to achieve that objectivity in science we can't do otherwise !
The Alchemist
29-12-10, 20:06
_I_ Modern science itself thanks her own very existence to muslims : the latters were the ones who invented the experimental empirical grounds of modern science , not F.Bacon, thanks to the islamic experience, practice , hard work, ...spirit & essence that elevates the use of reason , the seeking of knwoledge in the larger sense, work, practice, experience , constant search .... to the level of religious duties, to the level of worship of God :
in the sense : the more belief +work, experience, practice, knowledge ,constant search ; the closer one can get to islam & thus to God :
True science is therefore & worship of God when it's liberated from materialism as an ideology & from its materialistic mechanical paradigms such as that dead "newtonian _cartesian" one at least !
!
_II_Materialism is just a vision of Man, life , the world, the universe ....a paradigm that excludes all other potential paradigms & visions of Man, life , the world ....: materialism as an exclusive reductionistic & 1sided, 1 dimentional ...ideology dominates nowadays in exact science, in human sciences .....= dictatorship & totalitarianism of materialism at those levels & beyond !
_III_ Islam as the one & only universal true belief can be combined with science thus like no other : Islam as no culture :
as materialistic philosophy feeds back science & vice versa , idem dito for buddhism, taoism, hinduism, ...in relation to science & vice versa, so can islam do that too & like no other !
_IV_ Science is just a representation of reality, a form of culture, a social activity, practiced by scientists humans via their own cultural social biological psychological ideological & other backgrounds :
Objectivity does therefore not exist , not even at the level of exact sciences, let alone elsewhere :
universal true objective islam enables us to achieve that objectivity in science & elsewhere we can't do otherwise !
................
Harts intelligentie
29-12-10, 20:29
THE drama of the west is that it separated between the inseparable : between matter & spirit , between material & spiritual life , while islam for example is spiritual & material at the same time : islam as individualistic holistic multidimentional = an understatement :
islam as an individual private, social, material spiritual, political, jurisdictional, economical ....matter :
THE drama of the west is that it had separated between matter & spirit , between material & spiritual life,between life & the after _life .....
Harts intelligentie
30-12-10, 12:10
Modern science is /was the natural legetimate daughter of islam ...for the above mentioned reasons ...
The Phoenix
30-12-10, 13:26
_I_ Modern science itself thanks her own very existence to muslims : the latters were the onesw ho invented the experimental empirical grounds of modern science , not F.Bacon, thanks to the islamic experience, practice , hard work, ...spirit & essence that elevates the use of reason , the seeking of knwoledge in the larger sense, work, practice, experience , constant search .... to the level of religious duties, to the level of worship of God :
in the sense : the more belief +work, experience, practice, knowledge ,constant search ; the closer one can get to islam & thus to God :
true science is therefore & worship of God when it's liberated from materialism as an ideology & from its materialistic mechanical paradigms such as that dead "newtonian _cartesian" one !
!
_II_Materialism is just a vision of Man, life , the world, the universe ....a paradigm that excludes all other potential paradigms : materialism as an ideology dominates nowadays in exact science, in human sciences .....= dictatorship & totalitarianism of materialism at those levels !
_III_ Islam is the one & only universal belief can be combined with science thus like no other :
as materialistic philosophy feeds back science & vice versa , idem dito for buddhism, taoism, hinduism, ...in relation to science & vice versa, so can islam do that too & like no other !
_IV_ Science is just a representation of reality, a form of culture, a social activity, practiced by scientists humans via their own cultural social biological psychological ideological & other grounds :
Objectivity does therefore not exist , not even at the level of exact sciences, let alone elsewhere :
universal true objective islam enables us to achieve that objectivity in science we can't do otherwise !
Exactly !
materialism is just an ideology, just a reductionistic exclusive 1dimentional, 1sided vision of Man , life , the universe = a paradigm excluding all other potential paradigms, including those of religion :
there's no reason to justify the domination , dictatorship & totalitarialism of materialism as an ideology in excat sciences , in human sciences ....
Wat een lachertje weer. Dit is nieuws van de dag? Met als enige prikker iemand die het onder verschillende nick's roerend met zichzelf eens is.
Fulanadetal
30-12-10, 13:54
Mmm. Toch wel interessant hoor. Ik zou je in dit verband op het volgende artikel willen wijzen. Er lijken verbanden te zijn met jouw visie hierop.
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Alan D. Sokal
Department of Physics
New York University
4 Washington Place
New York, NY 10003 USA
Internet:
[email protected]
Telephone: (212) 998-7729
Fax: (212) 995-4016
November 28, 1994
revised May 13, 1995
Note: This article was published in Social Text #46/47, pp. 217-252 (spring/summer 1996).
Biographical Information: The author is a Professor of Physics at New York University. He has lectured widely in Europe and Latin America, including at the Università di Roma ``La Sapienza'' and, during the Sandinista government, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua. He is co-author with Roberto Fernández and Jürg Fröhlich of Random Walks, Critical Phenomena, and Triviality in Quantum Field Theory (Springer, 1992).
Transgressing disciplinary boundaries ... [is] a subversive undertaking since it is likely to violate the sanctuaries of accepted ways of perceiving. Among the most fortified boundaries have been those between the natural sciences and the humanities.
-- Valerie Greenberg, Transgressive Readings (1990, 1)
The struggle for the transformation of ideology into critical science ... proceeds on the foundation that the critique of all presuppositions of science and ideology must be the only absolute principle of science.
-- Stanley Aronowitz, Science as Power (1988b, 339)
There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.
But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics1; revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility2; and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ``objectivity''.3 It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ``reality'', no less than social ``reality'', is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific ``knowledge", far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities. These themes can be traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz's analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics4; in Ross' discussion of oppositional discourses in post-quantum science5; in Irigaray's and Hayles' exegeses of gender encoding in fluid mechanics6; and in Harding's comprehensive critique of the gender ideology underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in particular.7
Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step farther, by taking account of recent developments in quantum gravity: the emerging branch of physics in which Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and Einstein's general relativity are at once synthesized and superseded. In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science -- among them, existence itself -- become problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has profound implications for the content of a future postmodern and liberatory science.
My approach will be as follows: First I will review very briefly some of the philosophical and ideological issues raised by quantum mechanics and by classical general relativity. Next I will sketch the outlines of the emerging theory of quantum gravity, and discuss some of the conceptual issues it raises. Finally, I will comment on the cultural and political implications of these scientific developments. It should be emphasized that this article is of necessity tentative and preliminary; I do not pretend to answer all of the questions that I raise. My aim is, rather, to draw the attention of readers to these important developments in physical science, and to sketch as best I can their philosophical and political implications. I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum; but I have taken care to provide references where interested readers can find all requisite details.
Rest artikel alhier, dit ivm leesbaarheid forum:
Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html)
The Phoenix
30-12-10, 18:00
Wat een lachertje weer. Dit is nieuws van de dag? Met als enige prikker iemand die het onder verschillende nick's roerend met zichzelf eens is.
Try to read that article & the above mentioned comments u might learn something from
The Phoenix
30-12-10, 18:08
Mmm. Toch wel interessant hoor. Ik zou je in dit verband op het volgende artikel willen wijzen. Er lijken verbanden te zijn met jouw visie hierop.
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Alan D. Sokal
Department of Physics
New York University
4 Washington Place
New York, NY 10003 USA
Internet:
[email protected]
Telephone: (212) 998-7729
Fax: (212) 995-4016
November 28, 1994
revised May 13, 1995
Note: This article was published in Social Text #46/47, pp. 217-252 (spring/summer 1996).
Biographical Information: The author is a Professor of Physics at New York University. He has lectured widely in Europe and Latin America, including at the Università di Roma ``La Sapienza'' and, during the Sandinista government, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua. He is co-author with Roberto Fernández and Jürg Fröhlich of Random Walks, Critical Phenomena, and Triviality in Quantum Field Theory (Springer, 1992).
Transgressing disciplinary boundaries ... [is] a subversive undertaking since it is likely to violate the sanctuaries of accepted ways of perceiving. Among the most fortified boundaries have been those between the natural sciences and the humanities.
-- Valerie Greenberg, Transgressive Readings (1990, 1)
The struggle for the transformation of ideology into critical science ... proceeds on the foundation that the critique of all presuppositions of science and ideology must be the only absolute principle of science.
-- Stanley Aronowitz, Science as Power (1988b, 339)
There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.
But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics1; revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility2; and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ``objectivity''.3 It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ``reality'', no less than social ``reality'', is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific ``knowledge", far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities. These themes can be traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz's analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics4; in Ross' discussion of oppositional discourses in post-quantum science5; in Irigaray's and Hayles' exegeses of gender encoding in fluid mechanics6; and in Harding's comprehensive critique of the gender ideology underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in particular.7
Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step farther, by taking account of recent developments in quantum gravity: the emerging branch of physics in which Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and Einstein's general relativity are at once synthesized and superseded. In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science -- among them, existence itself -- become problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has profound implications for the content of a future postmodern and liberatory science.
My approach will be as follows: First I will review very briefly some of the philosophical and ideological issues raised by quantum mechanics and by classical general relativity. Next I will sketch the outlines of the emerging theory of quantum gravity, and discuss some of the conceptual issues it raises. Finally, I will comment on the cultural and political implications of these scientific developments. It should be emphasized that this article is of necessity tentative and preliminary; I do not pretend to answer all of the questions that I raise. My aim is, rather, to draw the attention of readers to these important developments in physical science, and to sketch as best I can their philosophical and political implications. I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum; but I have taken care to provide references where interested readers can find all requisite details.
Rest artikel alhier, dit ivm leesbaarheid forum:
Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html)
Highly interesting , thanks , love !
materialism as an ideology is agonizing , idem dito for those mechanical materialistic "newtonian _cartesian" paradigm metaphysics ....
I hope these guys can learn something from it & try therefore to broaden their horizons way further than only materialistic approaches ...
there's a world wide thought revolution taking place at the level of thought, philosophy of science , epistemology, ethics , logics ...triggered by post_modernism , by Oriental holism, by quantum mechanics' uncertainty & unpredictability , by the science of complexity or theory of chaos ...
But most people here & elsewhere are still applying modernist backward views whose "universalism, truth, objectivity" claims were fundamentally proven wrong by post_modernism for example & other :
they seem to live in the stone age in that regard at least ..
The Phoenix
30-12-10, 18:13
Fact is :
"Objectivity" doesn't exist , not even at the level of exact sciences , let alone elsewhere ...
see in that regard :
"Lifting the veil : the feminine face of science " By organic chemist Linda Jean Shepherd :
Linda had also studied quantum mechanics, quantum theory, theory of chaos , Oriental holism, physics of chemistry & had also studied that so_called depth psychology of Jung for more than 15 years , Jung's depth psychology that was inspired by taoism, buddhism..............
The above mentioned book is all about post_modernistic neo_feminism's philosophy of science , epistemology, ethics ....introducing heart, feeling, intuition even in science as extra sources of knowledge together with reason & empirics ....
introducing heart, love, feeling, compassion , empathy ...to ethics ...
Post modernism that tries to combine western individualism with Oriental holism while islam is already individualistic & holistic at the same time = an understatement !
The Phoenix
30-12-10, 18:23
Het geheel is niet de som der delen, mensen : holisme !
P.S.: Heart's intelligence is the highest form of intelligence :
staat meestaal boven de cognitieve in geval van gezond verstand daarbij ...
The Phoenix
30-12-10, 18:49
Tot zo, busje komt zo ! :zwaai:
Highly interesting , thanks , love !
materialism as an ideology is agonizing , idem dito for those mechanical materialistic "newtonian _cartesian" paradigm metaphysics ....
I hope these guys can learn something from it & try therefore to broaden their horizons way further than only materialistic approaches ...
there's a world wide thought revolution taking place at the level of thought, philosophy of science , epistemology, ethics , logics ...triggered by post_modernism , by Oriental holism, by quantum mechanics' uncertainty & unpredictability , by the science of complexity or theory of chaos ...
But most people here & elsewhere are still applying modernist backward views whose "universalism, truth, objectivity" claims were fundamentally proven wrong by post_modernism for example & other :
they seem to live in the stone age in that regard at least ..
Dictatorship & totalitarianism of materialism in the excat sciences, in human sciences & elsewhere are almost over !
Harts intelligentie
31-12-10, 18:08
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Phoenix
31-12-10, 19:21
Modern science is /was the natural legetimate daughter of islam ...for the above mentioned reasons ...
Exactly :
Francis Bacon was no the one that had invented the empirical experimental grounds of modern science ...
The Phoenix
01-01-11, 20:08
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fulanadetal
01-01-11, 20:59
De Sokal-affaire is een hoax, bedacht door Alan Sokal, professor in de fysica aan de universiteit van New York. Hij stuurde een nep-artikel, doorspekt met onzinnige redeneringen en pseudowetenschappelijk jargon, naar het Amerikaans academisch tijdschrift Social Text. Sokal wilde, bij wijze van experiment, te weten komen of een goed gemaakt maar compleet onzinnig artikel gepubliceerd zou worden in een postmodern tijdschrift als het a) goed zou klinken, en b) de redactieleden zou flatteren met ideologische maar holle concepten. Het artikel werd, in 1996, inderdaad gepubliceerd en veroorzaakte veel verontwaardiging in de internationale academische wereld, die jaren later nog voelbaar was.
Sokal-affaire - Wikipedia (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal-affaire)
Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html)
Harts intelligentie
02-01-11, 18:49
De Sokal-affaire is een hoax, bedacht door Alan Sokal, professor in de fysica aan de universiteit van New York. Hij stuurde een nep-artikel, doorspekt met onzinnige redeneringen en pseudowetenschappelijk jargon, naar het Amerikaans academisch tijdschrift Social Text. Sokal wilde, bij wijze van experiment, te weten komen of een goed gemaakt maar compleet onzinnig artikel gepubliceerd zou worden in een postmodern tijdschrift als het a) goed zou klinken, en b) de redactieleden zou flatteren met ideologische maar holle concepten. Het artikel werd, in 1996, inderdaad gepubliceerd en veroorzaakte veel verontwaardiging in de internationale academische wereld, die jaren later nog voelbaar was.
Sokal-affaire - Wikipedia (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal-affaire)
Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html)
Irrelevent : had ik alleen maar de eerste alineas gelezen van die artikel van je : was ik van plan om dat te lezen : had ik vergeten , vooraal toen ik had gemerkt dat niemand had "inhoudelijk" gereaageerd, behalve jezelf , met dank toch wel :
vergeet die artikel van je even & vertel me wat je denkt over de topicsartikel & over wat ik hiero scchreef ....
P.S.: Ik raad je aan om deze boek te gaan lezen :
"The boundaries of the thinkable" by Noam Chomsky !
Fulanadetal
02-01-11, 19:13
Ja hoor, natuurlijk.
Harts intelligentie
03-01-11, 12:53
Ja hoor, natuurlijk.
Ja hoor wat precies ???