[lit-ideas] Re: Trivium, or McEvoy in Wonderland
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:15:38 +0000 (UTC)
Torgeir's reply begins:-
Charles Dodgson held the view that to the four recognised algebraic operations
-- addition, subtraction, multiplication and division -- two
more should be added, uglification and derision. McEvoy's latest attempt
falls within the purview of Dodgson's extended definition. His
argumentative loitering -- seeking to extract from one's opponent
falsifiable information with the purpose of being able to say "I was
right and you were WRONG!" -- testifies to a girlish attitude.....>
I must warn everyone who joined the list yesterday that I tend to look for the
arguments in posts, and this approach isn't for everyone.
Torgeir's beginning is a form of argument (or non-argument) that consists of
introducing some "view" of an authority [Dodgson] and then asserting this
applies ["within the purview"], and then manages by this kind of contrivance -
and nothing else except an allegation of "argumentative loitering" - to
conclude that McEvoy has a "girlish attitude". Taken in its full sweep, it is
not much of an argument - even as ad hominem it's feeble. But it's the
highpoint of Torgeir's opening paragraph.
The conclusion that I suffer from "girlish attitudes", however, is as may be
[since a conclusion may be correct despite the invalidity of the argument in
its support], but then some people can't argue for toffee, which may be worse
than girlish attitudes.
Torgeir's beginning is followed by Torgeir pointing out that the answers to my
questions are out there if only I would take myself off and look for them.
Again that's as may be [though I've spent today with a 6 year old, I refrain
from concluding that it shows Torgeir's 'boyish attitude'].
But maybe one example of these studies - maybe one of the best and most
important ones - could have been presented by Torgeir. Instead he relies on
referring me to "widely available search engines". If only we could all get our
qualifications so easily - answering questions by referring the examiner to
"widely available search engines". Again _as argument_ Torgeir's reply is
feeble.
If McEvoy earnestly and truthfully would like to know the number of
times social scientists have penetrated into the laboratories, the
answer to this is likely to be found in what is usually referred to as a
meta-study. For those who consider themselves rightly to be
non-specialist in this area, there is a long history of social
constructivist scholarship, dating back at least to the 1950s (The
Social Construction of Reality). Making use of any of the widely
available search engines in the Internet is likely to provide McEvoy
with a long and educational reading list.>
Since this is the height of it in Torgeir's post, I can only assume this is
what he thinks constitutes an adequate reply. He refers to "meta-study", which
like search engines may be a source of answers to my questions - but not to
anything specific that has been shown by any meta-study. This is a defect. That
"the numbers of times social scientists have penetrated into the laboratories"
might be answered in a "meta-study" does not tell us the number or likely
number, or even _if any ever_ entered the laboratories - still less does it
show that, if they did enter laboratories, they proved anything useful or
valid. It no more does this than the number of times I have shown girlish
attitudes is proved simply because a "meta-study" might provide the answer -
and even if we knew that number, it would leave unproved whether those girlish
attitudes were 'correct' or not [I mean, girls might sometimes be right].
There appears to me to be a stark contrast between Torgeir's unargued and
unexplained "scepticism" re Sokal and Torgeir's seeming unargued and
unexplained lack of scepticism about "social constructivism" itself. [But I may
have misunderstood: Torgeir's grammar isn't the best here - scepticism re Sokal
might be what Torgeir means by "those who take a sceptical view to the
fraudulent and deceptive approach to scholarship documented by Sokal", though
Torgeir might also mean to refer here to those who are "sceptical" about the
fraudulent and deceptive scholarship. Nevertheless, on my reading (admittedly
without "meta-study"), Torgeir does seem sceptical that Sokal's
"self-aggrandising" tells much against social constructivism.]
Again, I do not quite see what argument is in Torgeir's last paragraph - is it
being suggested "social constructivism" is correct because it was "already
...around for 40 years", in which case Platonism is surely more correct having
been around longer? If not, why throw in the "40 years"? Nor is it clear to me
how the reference to "Stanley Fish", or the "editorial team's view", provides
any argument one way or another.
In throwing out pompous rhetorical flourishes without any clear and cogent
underlying argument, Torgeir's post mimics the half-baked waffle of (at least
some) "social constructivism", so penetratingly parodied by Sokal and Bricont -
and where, to the shame of social constructivists*, S&K's ludicrous mimicry was
taken by the so-called experts as 'the real thing'.
DL*Of course, they weren't all ashamed - though they ought perhaps to have
been. People with the lowest standards are sometimes the most immune to shame.
From: Torgeir <phatic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Lit Ideas
<lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, 2 October 2016, 18:40
Subject: [lit-ideas] Trivium, or McEvoy in Wonderland
Charles Dodgson held the view that to the four recognised algebraic
operations -- addition, subtraction, multiplication and division -- two
more should be added, uglification and derision. McEvoy's latest attempt
falls within the purview of Dodgson's extended definition. His
argumentative loitering -- seeking to extract from one's opponent
falsifiable information with the purpose of being able to say "I was
right and you were WRONG!" -- testifies to a girlish attitude we are
more prone to find in the wishful thinking of Alice of Wonderland fame.
It should be below a serious and astute participant who argues in good
faith.
If McEvoy earnestly and truthfully would like to know the number of
times social scientists have penetrated into the laboratories, the
answer to this is likely to be found in what is usually referred to as a
meta-study. For those who consider themselves rightly to be
non-specialist in this area, there is a long history of social
constructivist scholarship, dating back at least to the 1950s (The
Social Construction of Reality). Making use of any of the widely
available search engines in the Internet is likely to provide McEvoy
with a long and educational reading list.
To those who take a sceptical view to the fraudulent and deceptive
approach to scholarship documented by Sokal in his self-aggrandising
volume, it is worth one's while to also take into account the position
of those who published his initial -- and fake -- article. Stanley Fish,
then editor of Social Text, responded to what became a cover story in
the New York Times with an op-ed, giving the editorial team's view on
the matter. These were events that took place in the mid 1990s, when
so-called social constructivism had already been around for about 40
years.
--
mvh. torgeir
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
