"Authorizing Knowledge"

by Joan Fujimura
Review by Joe Donohue

What are the "Science Wars?" Some of the combatants would describe them in tones
reminiscent of the Wars of Religion in 16
th
Century Europe: the enemy is the
personification of all evil, the Antichrist himself is joining the fray, and the church
must be burned in order to be saved. While some prepare for the frontal assaults
against an implacable foe, others prefer subterfuge and deceit to dupe their opponents.
Everyone, it seems, wants to paper the world with propaganda. Everyone without
exception employs his stratagems towards one and only one goal: the total defeat of
the opposing side.
I picked out one article to demonstrate the war of words that rages between the natural
scientists and their lackeys on one side and the social scientists and the humanities ilk
on the other. The article by Dr. Joan Fujimura of Stanford compares the Sokal Affair
in 1996 to non-Euclidean geometry in the 19
th
Century. She argues Dr. Sokal
intended to use the affair and the ridicule it generated to silence critics of science. C.
P. Snow in 1959 described the gulf between two cultures "not only in an intellectual
but also in an anthropological sense." The two have not grown fonder since.
In 1994, Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt wrote a book Higher Superstition, which
lambasted the critics of modern science the "Academic Left" for their smug
ignorance of science. (Gross and Levitt also wrote that many of the science critics did
not deserve the degrees the critics have received, because the critics did not know how
to think logically. This did not endear Gross and Levitt to their critics.)
In that same year Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge wrote Professing Feminism, and
Christina Hoff Sommers wrote Who Stole Feminism? to decry lack of intellectual
rigor in current feminism. Patai and Koertge felt that feminism has evolved into a
Stalinesque dogma that stultifies creativity, snuffs out individuality, and will deter
college women from learning about the sciences and hamper them in their careers.
Sommers felt that the "other ways of knowing" doctrine of many feminists is merely
an excuse for not doing proper research and a cover for disguising opinions as facts.
Sommers also felt that women were short-changed by the malarkey being sold as
"knowledges" in college.
Afrocentrism was not neglected in these battles. Martin Bernal, Cheikh Anta Diop,
and George G. M. James have written books stating, in effect, that Greek culture is
the stolen property of ancient Egypt. Assuming that one could "steal" another culture,
Mary Lefkowitz in Not Out of Africa argues that the Greeks did not "steal" Egyptian
culture. Greek religion, architecture, and philosophy show little Egyptian influence.
(Ironically, Dr. Lefkowitz points out, Bernal and others rely on Greek sources for
their assertions.) That the Greeks never bothered to learn the Egyptian language made
them prey to the practical jokes of Egyptians. Until the Rosetta Stone, we had only
their word on the subject. Today we know better.
No war would be complete without a sneak attack, and 1996 was the year of the Sokal
Affair. Dr. Alan Sokal, physics professor at New York University, wrote the article,
"Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of
Quantum Gravity," for the Social Text, a journal for left-leaning social scientists
and humanities majors. The editors were planning a special issue on the "Science
Wars" and they were quite baffled by the only entry from a real scientist. The text of
the article was as opaque as the title, and the editors did not know what to make of it.
Although Dr. Sokal was in the same city as they, the editors did not meet with him for
an explanation. They asked Sokal to change his wording once, but he opposed, and
editors gave up. The editors clearly did not understand the article, but they did not
bring the article to an expert for review. The editors published it anyway.
Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies
whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric
Jameson and Andrew Ross publish an article liberally salted with
nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors
ideological preconceptions?
Dr. Sokal asked this in Lingua Franca when he decided to reveal his hoax. The
answer was apparently yes. The Social Text then went on the counteroffensive: they
defended their decision to publish the article and attacked Dr. Sokal for tricking them.
Their defense made them the butt of many unflattering editorials. Their fellow editors
had little pity for them: an editors job is, after all, to weed out bogus information and
check sources. Since the Social Text did neither, the Social Text deserved all the
ridicule it got according to the mores of the publishing industry. Heres an example
from the Times of London:
What Ross and Co. should have said, it seems to me, is that Social
Text is a political magazine in a deeper and more radical sense: under
appropriate circumstances, it is prepared to let agreement with its
ideological orientation trump every other criterion for publication,
including something as basic as sheer intelligibility. The prospect of
being able to display in their pages a natural scientist a physicist,
no less throwing the full weight of his authority behind their
cause was compelling enough for them to overlook the fact that they
didnt have much of a clue exactly what sort of support they were
being offered.
What is the purpose of ridicule? Is it a means to improve the performance of the
editors by making them look silly in the eyes of the public as Molire had written? Or
is it means of censorship to silence alternative viewpoints by belittling them? Dr. Joan
Fujimura believes it is the latter. Further, she believes that Sokals Trojan Horse was
itself flawed and deserving the same ridicule he has heaped on the Social Text. Also
she believes that the scientists are suppressing new ideas, because the ideas differ from
their prejudices, just as the medieval church sought to protect dogma by persecuting
Galileo. The men in white coats are standing in the way of the truth, because the truth
hurts.
The crux of Dr. Fujimuras argument stems from a controversy in the 19
th
Century.
Euclidean geometry is a logical construct based on a series of assumptions called
axioms or postulates. Postulate #5 states that all the angles of a triangle add up to 180
of arc, and on a flat surface they do. (Neither Euclid nor anyone else could prove this
point; thus he made it a postulate.) The Greeks also noticed that the proportion
between a circles circumference and its diameter was constant that they called pi (p ).
The rest of Euclidean geometry is based on these assumptions.
In 1816 Carl Friedrich Gauss, a 19
th
Century mathematician and part-time surveyor,
conducted a geodesic survey of Bavaria. Since the world is round, the actual distance
between two points can vary greatly from the straight line of Euclid. (Gauss used
averages of the terrain to correct the straight-line measurements his team made.) Gauss
wondered what would happen if the triangle was placed on a curved surface instead of
a flat one. He found that sum of the angles of triangle no longer equaled 180 and
also that the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter was no longer a constant.
Non-Euclidean geometry was born.
Gauss did not share this discovery with anybody. Dr. Fujimura quotes Harold E.
Wolfe, author of Introduction to non-Euclidean Geometry, who theorized that Gauss
feared that he would be ridiculed if he published his results. Gausss letters, found
after his death, indicate that he had low opinion of fellow mathematicians and thought
that they would not understand his discovery. Dr. Fujimura concludes that Gauss
could not face his critics even though he was right. He would have lost status with his
colleagues; so, he self-censored his work. Yet another good idea killed by peer-
pressure.
I could not find Wolfes book in the UConn library system, but I did find Bernsteins
Against the Gods, a book about probability and risk. Bernstein describes an altogether
different Gauss. Gauss loved Gttingen and hated to travel. He rarely published his
work and published his results rather than his methods when he did publish. Other
mathematicians had to either re-prove his theorems or rediscover them on their own.
"Mathematics might have been fifty years further along if Gauss had been more
forthcoming," writes Bernstein. Gauss admired Isaac Newton but had nothing but
disdain for rest of humanity mathematicians included. The Gauss that Bernstein
describes cared little what others thought of him.
Dr. Fujimura was certainly right that the followers of Gauss faced skepticism when
they tried to present their findings of the new geometry, but that is true of all new
ideas. Most new ideas turn out to be bad, and scientists tend to be conservative
because of it. Even Einstein could not accept quantum mechanics in spite of the
evidence presented. Dr. Fujimura is wrong, though, about her target. For instance, p
is still a constant although it is not the ratio between the circumference and the
diameter of a circle on a curved plane. (Mathematicians changed the definition
because of non-Euclidean geometry.) The constant p is also found in many fields of
study which have little connection to Euclidean geometry; thus, it is indispensable.
Geometry is peculiar subject for Dr. Fujimura to use as an example of science bias
since, in many ways, it is not a science. Geometry is built upon assumptions called
postulates or axioms. Geometry is a system that functions within its own logical rules.
If one changes any one of the rules, one gets an entirely different system. Science, by
contrast, is built upon repeatable experiment. No matter how logical the reasoning,
experimentation is the only proof of a hypothesis in science. While geometry is
complete unto itself, science must be rooted in the real world. The real world of
science is where the controversy rises.
Dr. Fujimura has two more accusations against the scientists: one, that Gross, Levitt,
and Sokal lump together disparate critics when they use the labels "postmodern" and
"academic left;" and two, the scientific community use appeals to authority to judge
the critics of modern science. The scientists have taken the moral high ground in
preparation to attack.
Nobody who has spent a lifetime carving out an academic niche likes being lumped
together with other people from other niches. This applies equally to the scientists and
the anti-scientists. The real question is whether the point that Gross, Levitt, and Sokal
make is accurate. Gross and Levitt admit in their book that the term "academic left" is
vague, but it was the only term that would cover the entire spectrum of critics. These
critics shared many characteristics and had a sense of fellowship. The common strains
between them were skepticism of the claims of modern science, work in academia,
and leftist politics; hence the name. Moreover, Gross and Levitt aimed their attacks
towards the practices of the anti-scientists and not their persons. If the serious critics of
science will not raise objections to the wilder assertions of their colleagues, then the
serious critics are no position to whine about being painted with a broad brush.
Here I must separate the anthropological issues from the scientific ones. This is not as
easy as it sounds because of the bad faith, ill will, name-calling, and mudslinging
between the two sides. Perhaps it was inevitable that inter-department rivalries would
develop in universities, because prestige and resources are unevenly distributed. Dr.
Fujimura, the anthropologist, is at her best when she defines and describes
constructivism scientists create representations in the course of their work and treat
them as real. As far as it goes, this description is true: after all, theories and models are
man-made. Few would pretend that the models are the objects they represent (an old
medical school saying states that a chart is not the patient). Scientists do indeed engage
in rituals that appear odd to observers especially precautions against things we
cannot see and scientists are creatures of habit, just like the rest of us. Theories can
have the most unfortunate consequences (e.g. the theory of eugenics led to the
Holocaust and other misfortunes). The study of how theories are produced and
distributed could give us new insights that could improve science itself.
But we should not treat constructivism as a substitute for science. There is a real world
out there, and no amount of "construction" can change that. Many scientists have
fallen in love with their theories only to be discredited when those theories were
disproven. (The tragic story of William Reich comes to mind.) If scientists have
pretensions to omniscience, the real world is an adequate antidote to such hubris.
Science-studies students should remember always that real scientists use theories as
tools and not as ends unto themselves.
Dr. Fujimura has four reasons why Sokal used ridicule on The Social Text:
1. Sokal does not understand the works of science studies.
2. He constitutes science studies as the "Other" a tired clich if ever
there was one.
3. He wants to be the arbiter of the truth.
4. He wants to distribute his misunderstandings to his fellow scientists
to incite them.
In the end, I remain unconvinced. Dr. Sokal may not know all the details of science-
studies, but he fooled The Social Text into publishing nonsense and not the other way
around. Dr. Sokal may not know all the details of mathematics, but he knew that p is
still a constant. Dr. Sokal may be parodying the crudest proponents of science-studies,
but these critics bring ridicule upon themselves. Criticism is the method for weeding
out bad ideas. It is the duty of academics to scrutinize whatever is produced in their
field for errors, omissions, and fraud. If outsiders find them first, the insiders can only
expect a lower social standing for it.
There is no doubt that this article will spur a nasty rebuttal. So long as the Science
Wars arouse deep passions, spectators cannot expect much civility from the
participants. In the Science Wars, the rule is to keep your mud wet and your powder
dry.

References and additional reading:
Anonymous, "You cant follow the science wars without a battle map," The
Economist, Dec. 13, 1997
Peter L. Bernstein, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, (October 1996)
John Wiley & Sons
Paul A. Boghossian, the Times Literary Supplement, Commentary. December 13,
1996, pp.14-15.
[Note: Paul Boghossian is, like Alan Sokal, also a professor at NYU.]
Joan Fujimura, "Authorizing Knowledge in Science & Anthropology: Comparison
with 19
th
Century Debate on Euclid," American Anthropologist, June 1998, vol.
100, No. 2
Michael Grant, Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation, (May
1995) Routledge
Paul R. Gross & Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its
Quarrels With Science, (October 1997) Johns Hopkins University Press
Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt & Martin W. Lewis (Editors), The Flight from Science
and Reason, (April 1997) Johns Hopkins University Press
Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach
Myth As History, (August 1996) HarperCollins
Daphne Patai & Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the
Strange World of Womens Studies, (August 1994) Basic Books
Bruce Robbins and Andrew Ross, "Response by Social Text editors Bruce Robbins
and Andrew Ross" (Lingua Franca, July/August 1996)
http://www.nyu.edu/pubs/socialtext/sokal.html
Jeffrey Shallit, "LEFTIST SCIENCE & SKEPTICAL RHETORIC: Higher
Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science," Skeptic vol. 3, no. 1,
1994, pp. 98-100
C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures, (September 1993) Cambridge University Press
Alan Sokal, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative
Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", This is the original "parody" article,
published in Social Text #46/47, pp. 217-252 (spring/summer 1996).
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
Alan Sokal, "A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies", This is the
article in which Sokal reveals the parody, published in Lingua Franca,
May/June 1996, pp. 62-64.
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html
Alan Sokal, "Transgressing the Boundaries: An Afterword"
Here Sokal explains in more detail why he wrote the parody. This article was
submitted to Social Text but rejected by them on the grounds that it did not meet their
intellectual standards. It appeared in Dissent 43(4), pp. 93-99 (Fall 1996) and, in
slightly different form, in Philosophy and Literature 20(2), pp. 338-346 (October
1996).
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/afterword_v1a/afterword_v1a_singlefile.html
Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? : How Women Have Betrayed
Women, (May 1994) Simon & Schuster
Harold E. Wolfe, Introduction to non-Euclidean Geometry, (1945), [I could not find
this book. I add it because Fujimura quotes from it.]
Dr. Alan Sokals homepage, which contains much of the material here:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
Finally, the Science Wars homepage:
http://members.tripod.com/ScienceWars/
Simply the sine non qua of the debate.