Advertisement

The Mote and the Beam

Who’s Blind to Whom?
  • Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)

Abstract

This paper wishes to make the case that philosophers and sociologists are not alone in their sometimes questionable understanding of physical and mathematical sciences. As a matter of fact, physicists themselves have often led the way towards these abuses, as will be shown by a detailed study of the so-called ‘Uncertainty Principle’ and other examples taken from modern physics. Further, the lack of philosophical and humanistic culture on the part of scientists from the ‘hard’ disciplines, make them prone to pass as arrogant as poorly informed judgments on the endeavours of social and human sciences. In fact, the present socio-political conditions of science production lead scientific knowledge to a permanent state of immaturity, inhibiting its epistemological recasting and favouring a careless relation with language. Science needs to recognise the fecund ambiguities of ordinary parlance, and cannot shun away from metaphorical expression. More generally, no criticism coming from the hard sciences and addressed to the softer ones can be valid if it is not first of all an autocriticism.

Keywords

Uncertainty Principle Modern Physic Conceptual Drift Complementarity Principle Metaphorical Expression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Battimelli, Gianni (1998), “When Did the Indeterminacy Principle Be-come the Uncertainty Principle?” American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, p. 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beller,Mara (1998), “The Sokal Hoax: At whom are we laughing?”, Physics Today, September 1998, pp. 29–34.Google Scholar
  3. Born, Max (1956), Physics in my Generation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  4. Born, Max (1962), Physics and Politics. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  5. Brecht, Bertolt (1967), Schriften2, Gesammelte Werke VIII. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp [First published in 1943 ].Google Scholar
  6. Bricmont, Jean (1996) “Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science?” Text available viahttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/chao-dyn/9603009
  7. Draaisma, Drouwe (2001), “The Tracks of Thought,” Nature, vol. 414, pp. 153–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feuer, Lewis S. (1974), Einstein and the Generations of Science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Feynman, Richard P. (1979), “Interviewed by Monte Davis,” Omni, May.Google Scholar
  10. Forman, Paul (1971), “Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Environment,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 1–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forman, Paul (1974), “The Financial Support and Political Alignment of Physicists in Weimar Germany,” Minerva, vol. 12, pp. 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forman, Paul (1980), “Kausalität, Anschaulichkeit e Individualität: Ovvero, come i valori culturali prescrissero il carattere e gli insegnamenti attributi alla meccanica quantistica,” Fisica e società negli anni ‘20, Milano 1980, pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
  13. Fox Keller, Evelyn (1995), Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth Century Biology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fox Keller, Evelyn (2002), Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors, and Machines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fujimura, Joan (1998), “Authorizing Knowledge in Science and Anthropology: Comparison with 19th Century Debate on Euclid,” American Anthropologist, vol. 100, June, pp. 347–360.Google Scholar
  16. Giscard d’estaing,ValÉry (1974), Speech at La Sorbonne, 24 September. Hawking, Stephen ( 1988 ), A Brief History of Time. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hesse, Mary B. (1998), “The Cognitive Claims of Metaphor,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 2, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  18. Jeans, James (1930), The Mysterious Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jurdant, Baudouin (ed.; 1998 ), Impostures scientifiques: les malentendus de l’affaire Sokal. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  20. Kastler, Alfred (1976), Cette étrange matière. Paris: Stock.Google Scholar
  21. Kay, Lily (2000), Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of The Genetic Code. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lederman, Leon and DickTeresi (1993), The God Particle. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  23. Lelong, Benoit (1997), “Personne n’a découvert l’électron,” La Recherche, November, p. 80.Google Scholar
  24. Levy-Leblond, Jean-Marc (1977), “On the Conceptual Nature of the Physical Constants,” Riv. Nuovo Cimento, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LÉvy-Leblond, Jean-Marc (1984), L’Esprit de sel (science, culture, politique). Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  26. LÉvy-Leblond, Jean-Marc (1996a), Aux Contraires (l’exercice de la pensée et la pratique de la science). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  27. Levy-Leblond, Jean-Marc (1996b), La pierre de touche (La science à l’épreuve…). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  28. Levy-Leblond, Jean-Marc (1998): “La méprise et le mépris”. In: Jurdant (ed.; 1998 ), pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
  29. Levy-Leblond,Jean-Marc and FranÇoise Balibar (1997), Quantique (Rudiments). Masson: Paris [First published in 1984; English translation: ‘Quantics’, 1990. Amsterdam: North-Holland].Google Scholar
  30. LÉvy-Leblond, Jean-Marc and FranÇoise Balibar (1998), “When Did the Indeterminacy Principle become the Uncertainty Principle?” American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, p. 278.Google Scholar
  31. Ricoeur, Paul (1998), Les Figures du discours. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  32. Rio, Michel (1993), Le Principe d’ Incertitude. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  33. Rio, Michel (1997), “Grâce au ciel, à Sokal et à ses pareils,” Le Monde, 11.2., p. 15.Google Scholar
  34. Sokal, Alan D. and JeanBricmont (1997), Impostures intellectuelles. Paris: Odile Jacob [English translation: `Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers’ Abuse of Science’. London: Profile Books, 1998. Published in the US and Canada under the title `Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science’. New York: Picador, 1998. Published in German under the title ‘Eleganter Unsinn: Wie die Denker der Postmoderne die Wissenschaft missbrauchen’. München: C. H. Beck, 1999 ].Google Scholar
  35. TeilhardDeChardin, Pierre (1956), La Place de l’Homme dans la Nature. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  36. Tipler, Frank (1994), The Physics of Immortality (Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead). New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  37. Updike, John (1986), Roger’s Version. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  38. VanVleck, John H. (1947), “Uncertainty Principle,” Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 22, pp. 679–680.Google Scholar
  39. Weinberg, Steven (1992), Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  40. Weinberg, Steven (1996), “Sokal’s Hoax,” The New York Review of Books, vol. 42, pp. 11–15 [reprinted in Weinberg (2001)].Google Scholar
  41. Weinberg, Steven (2001), Facing Up. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations