2.11.1 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. (Greenberg, 1990, pg. 1)

2.11.2 Contemporary art practice, particularly utilising digital technology, is loaded with references to science, and this trend has taken root in cultural theory as well. In fact, an entire new field has been formed in the humanities: "Science Studies." One would think that this would allow for better communication between the sciences and humanities, but in general this does not appear to be the case at the present time. Some of the work coming out of science philosophy and theoreticians commenting on the scientific process has infuriated some scientists and actually deepened the gap of the "Two Cultures."

2.11.3 The most famous recent case, and in my opinion relevant to consider, is the Sokal Incident. In 1996 Alan Sokal published an article in the American cultural-studies journal Social Text, a parody article entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity." The article is crammed with 'non-sensical quotations about physics and mathematics' by prominent French and American intellectuals such as Lyotard, Derrida, Irigaray, and Lacan. The text is full of references to scientists such as Heisenberg, Kuhn, Bohr, Harding, Bell, and Godel and is indeed as difficult to read as any postmodern theory text can be. The references cited are all real, and all quotes are rigorously accurate; however, having been taken out of their cultural contexts and reframed, they do assume questionable meanings. According to Sokal it was meant as an experiment to test whether the bold assertion claiming that physical reality is at the bottom of social and linguistic construct (without evidence or argument) would raise eyebrows among the editors. It did not. The editors trusted that the information in the essay, written by established scientists, would be an honest contribution and did not read carefully the erroneous information in the text. The debates sparked by Sokal's hoax have come to encompass a wide range of tenuously related issues concerning not only the conceptual status of scientific knowledge or the merits of French postructuralism, but also the social role of science and technology, multiculturalism, and 'political correctness,' the academic left versus the academic right, and the cultural left versus the economic left.

2.11.4 The text was followed by an entire book, Intellectual Impostors, which Sokal co-wrote with Jean Bricmont. In the book they exhibit incredible zeal and thoroughness in their effort to de-mystify these very famous authors. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this hoax article turned into event and book is how much rigour the thesis is delivered. One wonders if they actually had to put aside their own scientific research to write this book, which would indicate that this is much more than a hoax but something they felt was very important to deliver to the scientific community and the public at large. There is no question that the authors have done their homework and that their work has had a definite impact on The Two Cultures. Some of the fallout is positive in that it brought to surface and activated a dialogue that was simmering under the surface. The negative aspects are that the dialogue was coloured by controversy and was mostly argumentative, thus endangering the very fragile bridge between the humanities and sciences. Why was Sokal not flattered that science has a such a strong influence on contemporary philosophers, as Einstein was when he read Fuller's interpretation of the Theory of Relativity?

2.11.5 The philosophers Sokal and Bricmont attack are those working in theory of psychoanalysis, semiotics, or sociology and whose work is subject to innumerable analysis, seminars, and doctoral theses. It is important to note that there are no authors mentioned who are principally literary or poetic. Sokal and Bricmont do make a valid point when saying that the scientific terminology and fact were rather abused and consequently serving as a way to spread false information to the readers. Sokal assembled a list of quotations that showed this kind of handling of the natural sciences and circulated it to his scientific colleagues whose reaction were "a mixture of hilarity and dismay. They could hardly believe that anyone-much less renowned intellectuals‹ could write such nonsense." When the texts were shown to non-scientists, they needed to explain in lay terms why the said passages were "meaningless." One can only imagine the reaction of scientists when they read a quote from Lacan, who refers to the structure of the neutronic subject as exactly the torus (it is no less a reality itself. pg. 19), or from a passage by Kristeva, who states that poetic language can be theorised in terms of the cardinality of the continuum (pg. 38); or Baudrillard, who writes that modern war takes place in non-Euclidean space (pg. 137). We do get a clue that there is more at stake in Final Theory by Steven Weinberg:

2.11.6 These radical critics of science seem to be having little or no effect on scientists themselves. I do not know of any working scientist who takes them seriously. The danger they present to science comes from their possible influence on those who have not shared in the work of science but on whom we depend, especially those in charge of funding science and on new generation of scientists. (Weinberg, 1992) [top]