240
PARTISAN REVIEW
I particularly like it or dislike it, but we might as well face the fact that it
is probably that way.
One thing you said that I agree with completely: one will not have a
theory and understanding of mental states until one can construct mental
states from material objects in such a way that the construction displays all
the properties of the mental state. We have done it before: we have con–
structed such things as temperature from the motion of molecules; we have
constructed light from electricity and magnetism. That's the business we're
in; if we can do it, it will have to satisfy the criteria that you set. We don't
know yet whether we can do it-Let us just see.
Edith Kurzweil: I
just want to clarify something. I don't think there is as
much disagreement between the two of you as you think. What Alan Sokal
was doing was to send a pseudo-scientific text to a journal which comes
under the rubric of post-modernism. But post-modern texts deal with
theories that are derived from texts, including texts by scientists and by
psychoanalysts rather then with the content of your research. What's more,
post-modernists perceive things in relation to other things. Thus they are
entitled to choose texts that appeal to them, and to free-associate from one
text to another one and then come up wi th a Theory. This practice, which
was vaguely derived from Lacan's reading of Freud, became fashionable in
English departments, and then expanded into sociology, anthropology, and
most other discipline. So we are really dealing wi th a phenomenon exist–
ing in universities. It does not exist for psychoanalysts, but those of us
working in a university obviously are exposed to it.
Morris Eagle:
Before opening the discussion I want to make a couple of
quick comments. I am reminded of an article by Marianne von Eckardt, who
is a philosopher of science and the daughter of Karen Horney. She makes the
very simple and sensible point, that many people are fond of talking about
the theory-saturated nature of facts. That, in fact, may be true to a certain
extent. However, she makes the simple point that what scientists try to do is
to erect safeguards against such realities. The alternative, of course, is to wal–
low in it. I think that's an important distinction one can make. What one
perceives as fact can change with values, biases, and so on, but the way I
understand science, which is defined not by content but by attitude and
method, is to simply recognize that this exists and do the best one can to
account for it rather than make a virtue or a religion out of it-which leads
one to claim that no facts are possible, etc. Now, to the audience.
Steven Goldberg:
I should apologize that I came in so late and only
heard the last part of Dr. Cooper's talk. I was in a laboratory helping my
chemistry students observe facts.
