Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 1

1524:

electronics (e.g. the transistor), which made possible nearly all of modern technology (e.g. the computer). And the computer has had applications that are beneficial to society (e.g. in allowing the postmodern cultural critic to produce her articles more efficiently) as well as applications that are harmful (e.g. in allowing the U.S. military to kill human beings more efficiently). This raises a host of social and individual ethical questions: Ought society to forbid (or discourage) certain applications of computers? Forbid (or discourage) research on computers per se? Forbid (or discourage) research on quantum electronics? On solid-state physics? On quantum mechanics? And likewise for individual scientists and technologists. (Clearly, an affirmative answer to these questions becomes harder to justify as one goes down the list; but I do not want to declare any of these questions a priori illegitimate.) Likewise, sociological questions arise, for example: To what extent is our (true) knowledge of computer science, quantum electronics, solid-state physics and quantum mechanics--and our lack of knowledge about other scientific subjects, e.g. the global climate --a result of public-policy choices favoring militarism? To what extent have the erroneous theories (if any) in computer science, quantum electronics, solid-state physics and quantum mechanics been the result (in whole or in part) of social, economic, political, cultural and ideological factors, in particular the culture of militarism?

1064:

interpretation that is just as valid as the text itself...despite howls of protests from authors themselves who are usually clear in saying that their words really were intended to have a meaning. Saying that an author also could have nothave been fully aware of what they are writing, as far as I can see, is a different and lesser claim, and one much more justifiable. In any case, I have no problem with you noting what you write above. I also have no problem with much of this article presenting a deconstructionist argument denying that any text has an intended meaning; I just want to make sure that this article also presents the point of view of people who disagree; most literary scholars accept that authors do intend for their texts to have meanings, and that such meanings (unless poorly written) are not hard to discern.

1135:

etc. That's one thing. To the extent that deconstructionists refute that idea and says things like "there is nothing outside texts", many historians, scientists, and even some philosophers would disagree. Another thing is the idea of social construction versus "knowledge about reality." Deconstructionsts are often social constructivists, but I guess they are hardly alone. Not that social constructivists of that type is not criticized. Those who reject social construction would not be the majority. In short, "while many would agree that our knowledge of reality is shaped by social factors, few would join deconstructionists in regarding external objective reality as non-existent." Would that sound better than what currently is there?

1533:: whether atoms (and silicon crystals, transistors and computers) really do behave according to the laws of quantum mechanics (and solid-state physics, quantum electronics and computer science). The militaristic orientation of American science has quite simply no bearing whatsoever on the ontological question, and only under a wildly implausible scenario could it have any bearing on the epistemological question. (E.g. if the worldwide community of solid-state physicists, following what they believe to be the conventional standards of scientific evidence, were to hastily accept an erroneous theory of semiconductor behavior because of their enthusiasm for the breakthrough in military technology that this theory would make possible.) 1407:

These essays claim that any form of logical thinking is "colonianlist" or "masculinist", and prevents people from gaining knowledge through "other ways of knowing", including feminine intuition and mysticism. (These views are generally rejected by the majority of philosophers, and have little support in the mainstream feminist community.) Scientists hold that these claims are baseless. They point out that it is science alone that has provided information on the mysteries of the atom, the cell, the solar system, and the observable universe. It is science alone that has provided knowledge to develop thousands of technological advances in medicine, engineering, communications, computers, synthetic fabrics and beyond.

732:

with respectful dialogue, and also to give the article a more "deconstrution-friendly" feel by whimsically pointing out the unresolved tensions within the article itself, I've labeled each criticism "PROSECUTION" and each reply "DEFENSE." Hopefully the readers will be the jury. I hope this doesn't constitute a violation of NPOV, but I thought it was better to approximate NPOV by having multiple points of view explicitly present than to use NPOV as an excuse to curtail discussion. I hope nobody on either side of this debate is offended by the role in which I have cast her or him. Any thoughts?

1553:

privileged point of observation was replaced by a complex interaction of viewpoints. The new relativistic viewpoint was not itself a product of scientific 'advances' but was part, rather, of a general cultural and social transformation which expressed itself in a variety of 'modern' movements. It was no longer conceivable that nature could be reconstructed as a logical whole. The incompleteness, indeterminacy, and arbitrariness of the subject now reappeared in the natural world. Nature, that is, like personal existence, makes itself known only in fragmented images." (Source: Ferguson,

1316:

deconstruction -- deconstruction is a method of textual analysis/interpretation, not a school of thought. In my experience, those who consider themselves EITHER "opposed to" OR "aligned with" deconstuction generally fail to make this distinction. Carried out properly (there are, in my opinion, few but Derrida who are capable of it -- and even Derrida doesn't always succeed), the deconstruction of any text is a profoundly delicate and complex operation -- and a decent critique/interpretation must therefore also approach the operation with delicacy, sensitivity, and care.

1084:

the most popular definition of a scientific theory is that it is something falsifiable (Popper). According to that, scientists do not "prove" that reality is as described in a theory; they merely "reject" the possibility that data does not match the theory. when the mismatch does not happen, it means the theory survived the test of falsification. It does not mean the theory is "proven." So, I doubt if it is fair to say that vast majority of philosophers and scientists reject the idea that reality is unreachable."

1035:

popular definition of a scientific theory is that it is something falsifiable (Popper). According to that, scientists do not "prove" that reality is as described in a theory; they merely "reject" the possibility that data does not match the theory. when the mismatch does not happen, it means the theory survived the test of falsification. It does not mean the theory is "proven." So, I doubt if it is fair to say that vast majority of philosophers and scientists reject the idea that reality is unreachable.

1730:. Please read this carefully, because I emphatically am not using the No-True-Scottsman fallacy on you! For some reason you don't understand that I am using a specific definition of a word: I am talking about what you call "western philosophers". yet although I have always made this clear, you end up assuming that I am speaking about the classical religious and mystical beliefs of many Asians, which you are calling "philosophy". Isn't it clear that I am 31: 1376:. Although there may be some disagreement about which is the best name for this area of inquiry, can we agree that we don't need to have two separate articles? If nobody objects, I'm going to merge the two. I think it will be most natural to merge "Deconstruction" into "Deconstructionism", since the latter article is longer. If there are lingering disagreements about which should be the "true" name, we can settle them after the merge. Ok? -- 1232:. Although there may be some disagreement about which is the best name for this area of inquiry, can we agree that we don't need to have two separate articles? If nobody objects, I'm going to merge the two. I think it will be most natural to merge "Deconstruction" into "Deconstructionism", since the latter article is longer. If there are lingering disagreements about which should be the "true" name, we can settle them after the merge. Ok? -- 765:"deconstructionists" are not, in fact, important ideas specific to deconstruction; naive because of the question-begging arguments it presents as "obvious" refutations.) Either of these alone would be enough to justify its removal from a philosophy encyclopedia article, to my mind. The Chomsky quotation is not a "criticism" of anything, but a famous scholar saying that he doesn't understand. (And not that he doesn't understand 376:

substantial philosophical disagreements with deconstruction, of which there are many. (For some reason, most of the criticisms were basically about literary interpretation rather than other philosophical questions.) Other informed users will probably be able to augment these if they see a need, hopefully by beginning with actual claims made by Derrida or other deconstructive writers (quote! cite!) rather than straw men.

1538:...(when deconstructionsist) deny that non-context-dependent assertions can be true, and you don't just throw out quantum mechanics and molecular biology: you also throw out the Nazi gas chambers, the American enslavement of Africans, and the fact that today in New York it's raining. Hobsbawm is right: facts do matter, and some facts (like the first two cited here) matter a great deal. 912:. First: I have read and understood several thousand pages, from at least three dozen books, on deconstruction. I have been in graduate seminars with many experts who publish books on the topic. I have what I, and a prestigious university, think is a decent background in the topic. I hate to speculate on the background of other contributors, but RK's edits certainly don't 1866:

instance, a person can be under 150 pounds, or over 150 pounds. If a person weighs less than 150 pounds, then logically one we know that this person does not weigh more than 150 pounds at the same time. One cannot simultaneously say that both claims. Such a claim would amount a logical contradiction, what in regular English philosophers literally refer to as "nonsense".

789:

well-informed rewrite (with citations and documentation of sources), from a newbie author who's knowledgeable about the subject, was immediately (though just partially) reverted to its previous state of ignorance. The problem, in my opinion, is that the Wikipedian motto "Write about what you know about" fails in the not-so-uncommon case that a contributor doesn't

925:. You can read a million pages of Ayn Rand's objectivists belief system...but that still won't give anyone the right to use Knowledge (XXG) as a platform to push her ideology as a fact. We have to follow our NPOV policy. The same is true of those who would push the philosophy and belief system of other points of view as factual. We do not allow proponents of 1310:

first, critical theory's own claims to objectivity; second, their interest in specific forms of power that are material rather than discursive. But if you define the term very very loosely to refer to include all sorts of post-structuralist critiques of capitalist society, there are many who draw together both "critical theory" and "deconstructionism" SR

1658:, always in a linear fashion? They don't, nor do they claim to. (As discussed in the article on that topic.) This misconception causes many people to imagine they have discovered something profound (i.e. that all scientists don't always rigidly follow the method! Imagine that!) when in fact most scientists never held this position to begin with. 1059:

one to conclude that author is not fully aware of what s/he has written. There are "hidden" "alternative" and/or sometimes "true" meaning of the text revealed through these special methods. So, I think it is not good to say that vast majority of literary critics believe that author's words clarify or fix the meaning of the text."

1647:

the theories that they do for emotional reasons, but those emotions are based on facts and objectivity, and the strong emotions involved actually tends to make people more open minded not less. Now that I think about it, I'm curious where this stereotype of a physicist as an objective unfeeling machine comes from. --

1027:

that author is not fully aware of what s/he has written. There are "hidden" "alternative" and/or sometimes "true" meaning of the text revealed through these special methods. So, I think it is not good to say that vast majority of literary critics believe that author's words clarify or fix the meaning of the text.

820:

someone claims "I am an expert on this, believe me. And please don't change what I write," (there are all kinds of people who says something like this, you know...) other people at Knowledge (XXG) can still be bold in editing. After all, Knowledge (XXG) is not based on qualifications, but mostly on peer review.

1672:

person weighs less than 150 pounds, then logically one we know that this person does not weigh more than 150 pounds at the same time. One cannot simultaneously say that both claims. Such a claim would amount a logical contradiction, what in regular English philosophers literally refer to as "nonsense".

1935:

Hmm, it looks like I was conflating the law of non-contradiction with the law of the excluded middle. But it also seems as if Derrida is making the same mistake? The current version of the Knowledge (XXG) articles on this topic fails to make a clear distinction. Would you mind taking a whack at our

1406:

There should be a section on deconstructionists and science. In recent years a number of prominent literary deconstructionist, French philosophers, and some radical feminists have written essays attacking the scientific method, science in general, as well as the entire field of mathematics and logic.

1309:

It depends on how you define "critical theory." If you use the term narrowly, to refer to the Frankfurt school (which developed and coined the term), then the answer is no. In fact, the heir to the Frankfurt School, Jurgen Habermas, is (I think) opposed to deconstruction. There are two key issues:

1213:

I'm going to change the title to "Deconstruction," on the grounds that (in my experience) "deconstructionism" is a description used solely by journalists or hostile critics. "Deconstruction," I believe, is the neutral term. (JRB) The Derrida/Lévi-Strauss example is interesting, but is there nothing

1134:

Second, regarding reality issue. Now I think of it, I was confusing two things - like you suggested, many do not doubt that reality exists out there, while some deconstructionists do. Many, at least, take that idea of external, objective reality as a workable assumption, something they want to prove,

1130:

First, the clarification you asked regarding author's intention. What I wanted to say is that not every text is eaually easy to deconstruct. Some texts clearly seem to have a rather straightforward meaning. Other texts have apparent ambiguity and are open to many readings - some readings may be found

1026:

Criticism regarding "author's intention." I think it is fair to say that many literary critics rely on their own way of reading the text, and that can be different from the auther's. Psychoanalysis, structuralism, marxism, feminism and perhaps some other ways to read a text would lead one to conclude

899:

What edit war? I made one change today, and others are free to edit this change. Please stop presenting yourself as a martyr that is under attack. You aren't. If you took the time to read the new material, you'd note that I actually included much of your own text, often word for word, along with my

845:

I removed a very biased "disclaimer" from a deconstructionist apologist. He wrote in this article "This article's discussion of deconstructive thought should be considered a gross oversimplification. Deconstruction is vulnerable to misunderstanding even when carefully and sympathetically summarized,

346:

I've undertaken a major rewrite of this article, and removed the NPOV dispute (though I expect someone belligerent may replace it until more "criticism of deconstruction" is added). I had to scrap a lot of text: the article contained very little information specific to deconstruction, and used a lot

333:

Rbellin --- I wrote some parts of this article, I acknowledge it is far from neutral. I want it to be neutral. I welcome your changes. You won't get flamed by me. Don't swing the other way, of course. The landscape of the pro/anti rhetoric about D is as much a part of describing it as describing its

307:

So, I am a knowledgeable person in the field, and I am eager to contribute to the Knowledge (XXG) philosophy space, but I find it difficult to know where to begin, other than creating new articles and fleshing out stubs. Many existing pages seem quite slanted, and appear to be written from a passing

1906:

My point here is that Derrida might be nutty, but he isn't nutty because he denies the law of the excluded middle. I've just given seven references to mathematicians and mathematical philosophers who also deny the universiality of the law of the excluded middle. My point is also that the summary of

1817:

Third, the paragraph as I just found it in the article gave more time to a refutation of Derrida's take on the law than to his original presentation. This hardly seems fair, given that the refutation is basically "trust your common sense", whereas Derrida's take, supposing it to be coherent, is more

1223:

By "interpersonal communication" do we mean speech? Also, I doubt that "interpersonal communication" is Plato's preferred form of speech. It seems he would be more excited by, say, the sound, logical proposition. He might not gave been quite as obsessed by the proposition as Aristotle, or as modern

797:

Furthermore, most experts and scholars, even if they decide to contribute to the Knowledge (XXG), are not going to have the energy or inclination to engage in long discussions with non-experts defending the changes they make. Does Knowledge (XXG) have a way to deal with this problem, given that for

731:

I've tried to deal with the problems regarding the "Criticisms of Deconstruction" section of the article in a new way. After several of the criticisms in this section, I've inserted short replies of the sort that a deconstructor might give. To emphasize this attempt to replace mutual recrimination

320:

Politeness is a worthy goal, but not so worthy as getting things right. If you think you understand the topic better than the article, then it's probably best to make your changes, and participate in the ensuing discussion. Some people around here are flamers, but a number of people at least attempt

177:

In general, the criticism article provides tends to be like "I don't understand it. It sounds just too strange and extreme." Characterization without explanation. I would try not to delete these criticisms much, since it may be the case that many think Derrida and others in that way, but I would try

1826:

All I did is give a one paragraph example of what the law means. It is necessary to do so, because someone not familiar with this law of logic would not be able to understand what the entire subject is about. I agree that the refutation makes Derria look stupid, but the mainstream point of view is

1686:

There are several problems here: First, the word "all" is dangerous. There are many people who are arguably philosophers and yet who are not dead-set on the veracity and/or importance of the law of the excluded middle. This includes followers of Derrida as well as the "duality is bad" philosophical

1552:

Totally misunderstanding Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and the development of Quantum Mechanics, sociologist Harvie Ferguson writes the frighteningly serious claim that "The inner collapse of the bourgeois ego signalled an end to fixity and systematic structure of the bourgeois cosmos. One

1083:

Tomos writes "Criticism regarding "reality" I think this is weak. It ends with "this view is rejected by vast majority of..." But it seems that quite many (influential) philosophers, including Kant, Quine, reject that we can have a direct knowledge of the reality. And think about science ... one of

1058:

Tomos writes "Criticism regarding "author's intention." I think it is fair to say that many literary critics rely on their own way of reading the text, and that can be different from the auther's. Psychoanalysis, structuralism, marxism, feminism and perhaps some other ways to read a text would lead

882:

make the above criticisms of deconstructionism, and they explain why in great detail. The above deleted statement is clearly calling all of these people too stupid to understand what they are reading. I propose that instead this article simply follow standard policy: Explain who holds point of view

760:

Because I think this issue is interesting for Knowledge (XXG) as a whole, not just a personal complaint, I want to state my opinion of the return of the "Criticisms" text that I deleted. I want to be clear: I'm not trying to start an argument (which I correctly predicted was likely before I edited

312:

page in particular is quite explicitly anti-deconstructive (and what's worse, factually incorrect in numerous places). Should I be bold and simply make the change, which might involve deleting long passages of this text? I fear this would invite flamewars in which I have no interest. What is the

194:

Some deconstructionists would seriously try to be radical, extreme critics of history or science, I think. And it is not very surprising that some of the beliefs they hold are fundamentally against the whole field of history or a science. But the article seems to be characterizing deconstructionism

1865:

Philosophers (i.e. those who study the discipline sometimes referred to as western philosophy) disagree with him, holding that Derrida misunderstands the very meaning of the law of excluded middle. All the law points out is that a claim cannot be simultaneously true and false at the same time. For

1646:

Removed "emotional". Most physicists are extremely passionate people and are very emotional about their work. There is a popular belief that emotion and passion are incompatible with objectivity and rationality, which is *not* the case with most of the physicists I know. Most of them do believe

1315:

critical theory, as the term is generally understood in western academia, has been profoundly influenced by deconstruction -- I can't imagine saying anything relevant about contemporary critical theory without at least mentioning deconstruction. Also -- not sure what one could mean by "opposed" to

1104:

know a lot of things. Yet the core axiom of these fields is that actual historical events take place that we can learn about and describe; that actual physical events take place in this universe that we can observe and measure, and that our descriptions and measurements correlate with reality. Any

1071:

Tmos writes "Regarding the same point, I think a better characterization would be something like this: deconstructionists general claim (explicit or otherwise) that text is open to many different readings, would not be applicable to all texts equally - some are not as open to revealing alternative

929:

to push their views as factual, no matter how many books they read and how sincere they are. We do not allow proponents of Judaism, Christianity or Islam to push their views as factual, no matter how many books they read and how sincere they are. The same is true here. So, to be blunt, stop your

1870:

This statement is an incorrect summary of the law of the excluded middle and confuses it with the law of non-contradiction. The law of the excluded middle says that a statement *must* be either true or false. This is different from the law of non-contradiction which says that a statement cannot

1839:

The whole philosophical school is based on rejecting the law of the excluded middle. Unless you want to exclude Daoism and Zen Buddhism from the term philosophy, then you *can't* make the statement that all philosophers accept the law of the excluded middle. This is incidental why people who are

1691:

Can you name even one respected philosopher who denies the law of the excluded middle? I can't. I am not talking about literature majors who consider themselves philosophers, but actually philosophers who have a degree in philosophy and work as a philosopher. I agree with you that there are many

1671:

All philosophers disagree with him, holding that Derrida totally misunderstands the very meaning of the law of excluded middle. All the law points out is that a claim cannot be simultaneously true and false at the same time. For instance, a person can be under 150 pounds, or over 150 pounds. If a

1030:

Regarding the same point, I think a better characterization would be something like this: deconstructionists general claim (explicit or otherwise) that text is open to many different readings, would not be applicable to all texts equally - some are not as open to revealing alternative readings as

868:

Critics of deconstruction often believe it to advocate irrationalism, absolute relativism, radical social constructivism, opposition to science or history, anti-realism, subjectivism, and/or solipsism. None of these claims is supported by a careful reading of Derrida's work (or any other eminent

836:

I am not an expert on deconstruction, but some of the criticisms in the current version of the article do seem rather naive blanket statements to me. I still think those things deserve to remain, though, to the extent they are popular. Rather than removing those stuff, adding explanations of more

784:

I think all the content of the deleted text is summarized more coherently, more literately, and more correctly by the first paragraph of the Criticism section that I posted (which simply calls the positions attributed to deconstruction by the deleted texts by their proper philosophical names, and

1851:

talking about the mystical and religious beliefs of Daoists, Buddhists, Shintoists, or anyone else. If you wish to call these beliefs "philosophy", you must be extremely specific when you mention this. Do you see why your statements are not applicable to my original statements? You are talking

1422:

They hold that no other system which claims to compete with science has ever actually succeeded in actually producing useful information about the physical world in which we live, or has produced actual technologies. Left-wing deconstructionism has led to some very bizarre claims, that have only

1114:

My understanding is that most philosophers do not deny that reality exists, or that our experiences are related to reality. My admitted limited reading on this issue indicates that the problem for most of them is that they do not agree on if we can come up with a convincing, formal philosophical

957:

That is totally untrue, and shows your total ignorance of the subject. You obviously need to do a lot more reading if you are so totally unfamiliar with the vast literature that I am repeatedly referring to. The existence of thousands of critics of deconstructionism is not controversial, except

938:

Second: As I wrote above (right near where I predicted I'd be assumed to be an "apologist," though being assumed to be "he" I couldn't have predicted!), I think (personal opinion) this page is an example of a very general failing in Knowledge (XXG)'s community process (or lack of it), in which a

890:

I see that any view other than outright attack on deconstruction has little hope of remaining on this page for long. Since I do not have the tenacity or the desire to engage in an argument, much less an edit war, with RK, I surrender, and will likely never re-edit the page, or any other page he

819:

Knowledge (XXG) is based on the premise that the overall effect of having more people reading & editing an article is refinement of the article, and the premise could be wrong when a vast majority has a "wrong" understanding on the topic. Having such a premiose also means, however, that when

471:

is based on this principle, or a weaker version which holds that the author's intention is not the only, or the most interesting, goal of a text's interpretation. Note also that the seminal essays "The Death of the Author" and "What Is an Author?", against which some of the previous Talk page's

183:

deconstruction is said to be "several related schools of thought" at the beginning of the literary criticism section. This statement was actually in the introductory part of the article before I edited. But there is no identifications of those several schools in the article, as I read it. And it

136:

I think that is probably not major criticism, and mischaracterization. So I removed it. A closer claim is made by Habermas, that post-structuralists are in a state of perfomative contradiction (:means roughly "they are relativists, but they behave as if their relativism is absolutely true"). And

1018:

Regarding the POV stuff RK removed. I think some part of it is POV like RK suggested - namely, the claim that none of those characterizations is supported by the careful reading. But other parts, it seems, are not. The very first sentence seems to be agreed to be a fair characterization by both

978:

Fourth, because I think the "disclaimer" is an interesting issue: Presumably it's obvious, at least to the non-simple-minded, that there are topics too complex to cover in adequate depth in a Knowledge (XXG) article. Presumably it's also obvious that there are ideas and arguments too subtle to

849:

One hardly knows where to begin criticising such a claim. Is deconstructionist so much harder to understand than nuclear physics and quantum mechanics, or any other complicated topic? I highly doubt it. No other Knowledge (XXG) article has such grandiose personal disclaimers, and there is good

1034:

Criticism regarding "reality" I think this is weak. It ends with "this view is rejected by vast majority of..." But it seems that quite many (influential) philosophers, including Kant, Quine, reject that we can have a direct knowledge of the reality. And think about science ... one of the most

543:

You missed the point. While Kant did hold such a view, we are not talking about Kant at all. We are talking about a mainstream deconstructionit tenet, which is explicitly stated in many articles by deconstructionist authors. The fact of the matter is that there is a common criticism of this D

263:

I have just checked several philosophical encyclopedias published during the 90's. They all had entries on deconstruction. They also explained deconstruction not as a philosophy, but as a technique or method, or in something that should not be clearly formulated and formalized. (This is b/c of

1353:

synonym for criticism, analysis, debunking, or commentary. The usage often has a somewhat hostile tone but even that color of specific thought seems to be vanishing as the word pops up in advertising, political commentary, and movie reviews; like other verbal fashions -- "growing" a business,

706:

Deconstruction in architecture is an unrelated topic (and one well worth writing about!) Deconstructionist methods of reading a book are not really related to how an architect builds and designs apartment buildings, homes and monuments. This topic is already discussed in the article entitled

221:

I find your contributions to the beginning of this text-article-message-anti-message most hyberbolic, and tangential to the usual colonialist Euclidean meanings intended by other "authors". Bravo! Indeed, the very fact that other "authors" purport to be able to explain what deconstructionism

1703:

Buddhist and Taoist philosophers certainly do not hold to the law of the excluded middle. The first lines of Tao-Te-Jing kill the law of the excluded middle. You might want to argue that Buddhist and Taoist philosophers aren't real philosophers, and I would argue that in this case you are

764:

The text reintroduced to this page (from the fourth paragraph to the end of the Criticism section) was a major motivation for my rewrite. In my opinion, this text is factually inaccurate as well as philosophically naive. (Inaccurate because the philosophical beliefs which it attributes to

375:

As I've explained in the article, many critics (who I assume haven't read much, or any, Derrida) conflate deconstruction with varying stripes of post-modernism, which is incorrect. I've tried to point the "criticism" paragraphs away from the usual poorly informed diatribes and toward real,

1523:

For example, Harding (citing Forman 1987) points out that American research in the 1940s and 50s on quantum electronics was motivated in large part by potential military applications. True enough. Now, quantum mechanics made possible solid-state physics, which in turn made possible quantum

788:

The interesting thing here, as a broader topic for discussion, is that Knowledge (XXG) claims that expert and scholarly contributions are solicited. Yet in certain cases (like that of this page) I perceive an active will to ignorace among a segment of the user community: here a relatively

1063:

Sounds fine, and worth noting! Just to clarify, I was trying to present a rebuttal to a slightly different position. Many people are claiming that the author's intention of a text literally does not exist, or can never be found or understood, and that any "reading" of a text produces an

495:

Just because non-deconstructionists hold this point of view doesn't mean anything. The question is this: What do many deconstructionist believe as a part of their program (deconstructionism), and are their mainstream criticisms of these positions that exist. I have seen many critics of

1411:

Some scientists do, and some scientists don't. There is much more diversity in how scientists view science than one would imagine. Most scientists view science as having privileged point of view, but that is by no means universal, especially once you get out of physics and the "hard

858:

meaning. Over and over deconstructionist literature contains numerous examples of special pleading, in which deconstructionists demand the right to comment on any subject, but reject the right of anyone to examine or reject their own views. This is not NPOV. It isn't even rational.

1679:

This statement is incorrect. The law of the excluded middle is *very* different from the law of non-contradiction. The law of the excluded middle states that all statements must be either true or false, which is very different than saying that a statement cannot be both true and

750:

of how to present points and counterpoint. It could get very convoluted if we have Point, counterpoint, counter-counterpoint, counter-counter-counter-point, etc. It looks Ok for now, but if the issue grows any further, we will need to rewrite this section in paragraph form.

668:"A common rebuttal to all deconstructionist dogma is that deconstructionists effectively claim a privileged position for their own writings. They write letters and books which expect that readers understand their own intent, yet deny that this is possible for anyone else." 1587:

Removed line about strong social constructivism being rejected by virtually all scientists and historians. Change virtual all to most, there are quite a few scientists (particularly social scientists) I know that wouldn't be that averese to strong social constructivism.

1427:

a body of knowledge about the real world. they claim that science teaches us nothing about the world, but only exposes the belief systems of male capitalists. Obviously, these positions false, and harmful...but they exist, and they are popular in certain populations.

952:

Third: A fairly large proportion of RK's assertions on the topic are factually incorrect (most egregiously "the vast majority of..." assertions above), not that I'd waste my time trying, since RK will evidently not be convinced by documentation or citation of sources.

127:

I personally wonder if that kind of critique is really that important, but at least some of Derrida's text is known to be weird, even among scholars specializing in Derrida. So I tried to preserve both criticisms, with some change in place (context in the article) and

195:

simply as something unacceptable, rather than some potentially valid criticism. Or I may be interpreting the text only in one way and blind to other connotaitions or possible interpretations... This is a subtle point, and I would think once more before making change.

1214:

more straightforward? I, for one, have a lot of trouble swollowing a definition of writing as communication with the intent to enslave. Are there no examples of deconstruction based on more everyday definitions, that would make more sense to the uninitiated? As for

1131:

through the act of deconstruction. So, for some texts, deconstruction may be effective to overturn the "dominant" or "privileged" reading and find alternative reading of the text. But many would think that not all texts could be effectively dealt with in that way.

916:

any familiarity with the material that I can see. (I know, I'm just asserting this without documentation, and I'm honestly not trying to pull rank or justify my previous edits on this basis alone, but it puts what I'm saying about the changes in some perspective.)

1397:

Makes no sense to me. What is the "process of thinking?" And when did it need to be revived? Or, as it was before, "revivified?" I can't tell if the statement could be something like "process of criticism," but unless Derrida himself said this, could we change it?

283:). One encyclopedia entry specifically discussed the meaning of the phrase and suggested that what Derrida meant was quite different from what other people think he meant. So it may be that Derrida's position is not much anti-realist, while deconstructionists' are. 1504:

Sociology of knowledge. To what extent are the truths known (or knowable) by humans in any given society influenced (or determined) by social, economic, political, cultural and ideological factors? Same question for the false statements erroneously believed to be

1871:*both* be true or false. In particular, the law of the excluded middle excludes the possiblity that a statement is *neither* true nor false, and its perfectly possible to create a system of logic which is allows for statements that are neither true or false. 1218:

Derrida was not making fun of Lévi-Strauss. He was using his deconstruction of Lévi-Strauss to question a common belief in Western culture, dating back at least to Plato: that interpersonal communication is somehow more natural and better than other forms of

1443:

claiming that these radical deconstructionist views are representative of all social studies professors; note that they are usually only held by certain English majors, radical feminist, and Derrida-influences philosophy students. Some web resources follow:

785:

then correctly points out that none of them is really a meaningful tenet of deconstruction, and that the criticisms are really about some form of postmodernism). At least one user evidently disagrees, though without providing any citations or evidence why.

1482:

The academic left makes many gross errors when it attempts to apply deconstructionism to science. A review of their papers reveals that many in the academic left often confuse and/or conflates all of the following issues, described by physicist Alan Sokol.

145:

I didn't change what's already there. I gave a different context and changed the section title. Probably this section could offer a favorable and unfavorable characterization of epistemological and other claims of deconstructionists jaxtaposed with each

780:

In my opinion, a scholar reading this portion of the article would not consider Knowledge (XXG) a reliable or intelligent source. The article's point-of-view balance is improved since the new text was added, but I still consider this section subpar.

1304:

Is there a link between desconstructionism and critical theory? I was under the impression that critical theorists use some of the methods of deconstructionism to expose that what is claimed to be objectivity contains implicit power relationships,

979:

summarize effectively in a short article. So what's the problem with the disclaimer (which is of a sort that's common in pedagogical introductions to all kinds of topics)? Is it that Knowledge (XXG) articles on complex or subtle subjects should

92:

Re: NPOV Dispute. Although I find myself agreeing with critics of D, I must also agree that this article, as written, is quite anti-D. Would the user who added the NPOV dispute like to add some text about D, or alert someone who can to do so? ---

187:

There are paragraphs about deconstructionism applied to science and history. For one, that should belong to somewhere else. Also, the one which begins with "Most deconstructionists believe" seem to be a bit simplistic characterization to me.

1810:

I think you misunderstand the position of mathematicians. It's trivial to come up with a set of axioms which violate the law of the excluded middle. The trouble with those axioms is that they are useless since you can then logically prove

1557:, Routledge, 1990) In a quasi-Marxist rant, Ferguson goes onto to claim throughout his book that developments in physics are not actual knowledge gained about the real world, but rather are only ideas generated by "bourgeois consciousness". 426:

I thought about simply including some of the criticisms from the earlier article along with correct responses, but decided it didn't direct the article toward a better understanding of the subject. Just for fun, here are my replies.

900:

own. As for the above deleted paragraphs, they were gross violations of NPOV policy, that pushed deconstructionist beliefs as indisputable fact. Such belief pushing is unacceptable in all Knowledge (XXG) articles, not just this one.

798:

some topics not all Wikipedians will recognize the difference between a well-informed page and an amateurish one? I know that I won't be participating in any more back-and-forth in Talk pages here, because I have other work to do.

267:

But it would probably be a fair characterization that many scholars (deconstructionists) form their philosophical position based on what deconstruction as a technique implies about the nature of meaning, text, reality, power, and

1115:

proof for the existence of reality outside of our minds. (Indeed, philosophy has not come up with such proofs for many things that are discussed in the field.) The reason that so many philosophers work on this issue is that they

1595:

I agree. When I write "scientist", what comes to mind is the hard sciences (Physics, biology, chemistry, geology, etc.) If we include the wider definition of the sciences (which I agree is valid) then of course you are correct.

1746:(I assume there are better examples, but these are enough to show that "all" is inadequate. The phrase "Western philosophers" would be better, although still problematic. Perhaps "analytic philosophers" would be best of all?) 1046:

Tomos writes "In the section for differance, there is a paragraph starting with "In simple terms.." I don't think the part is in as simple as it could be. So I might try to come up with something better, if no one else does."

711:. That entry discusses both Deconstructivism and Deconstruction. I am thinking that perhaps the name of that architecture article is not enough for some people to find it in their Web search engines; maybe we should create 736:

Your additions are most welcome; I think they are in perfect accord with our NPOV policy. Although I do not agree much with Decon. viewpoint, I do agree that this article is the place to state it! Glad to have you on board.

895:, with a strong background in fields underrepresented here. And, for the record, I don't think this page should serve as a debate forum about mistaken claims based on cursory/poor readings of complex and lengthy texts. 107:

The term was defined in many parts of the article, partly due to the merging of previously separate two articles, and partly due to bad edits, inserting some texts without paying attention to the overall structure.

524:, who held that things-in-themselves, as separate from their phenomenal aspect, are in principle unknowable. While deconstruction is informed by Kant's work, this is not a distinguishing feature: so is all modern 1295:

Hilary Putnam's "Irrealism and Deconstruction" is a good, quick comment on how Derrida's work relates to what I am tempted to call real philosophy. He does a sort of compare-and-contrast with Nelson Goodman.--amt

943:

I didn't touch any of the article...except for the egregious sections in which you pushed your personal beliefs as irrefutable facts. That kind of bias and advocacy is forbidden in all Knowledge (XXG) articles.

1852:

about a different group, and so inadvertently refute claims that are not being made. Look, perhaps Buddhists, Daoists and others do agree with Derrida-style deconstructionsim. (I have no idea, nor do I care.)

815:

Well, whatever I say, you may never come back to this article. :( I think Knowledge (XXG) has its own limits, like you pointed out, but there are things you can do without being involved in the time-consuming

1423:

gained in popularity in recent years. (e.g. the works of Sandra Harding, Helen Longino, and Stanley Aronowitz, among others.) They write that science is only a set of male, Western cultural conventions, and

1022:

In the section for differance, there is a paragraph starting with "In simple terms.." I don't think the part is in as simple as it could be. So I might try to come up with something better, if no one else

1417:

Ironically, the fact that scientists have such diverse views on the philosophy of science and *still* managed to come up with a more or less standard view of the universe suggests that there is something

1321:

Please don't use "deconstructionISM". It's a method, an activity . . . NOT a school of thought or a doctrine. The term "deconstructionism" makes no more sense than, say, "philosophISM" or "sciencISM".

793:

what he or she knows and, more importantly, doesn't know about. And, as Hegel said, not everyone assumes they can be a shoemaker given leather and a last, but everyone thinks they can be a philosopher.

1100:

and total comprehension. But they do say that we can say some things about the real world! Historians and scientists claim no omniscience, and their fields are a testament to their admission that they

1692:

Derrida-inspired armchair philosophers who whold such a view. I am trying to point out that their views are totally rejected by mainstream philosophers, as well as mathematicians, scientists, etc.

805:-- to be inaccurate (or just bad). My contribution to Knowledge (XXG) in the future will probably be restricted to creating new articles, so I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. 210:

Re: NPOV edit: Sorry, I didn't mean it; at least I don't think I did. Do you think I meant it? Take my edits back out if you think I meant it and you are sure you have understood me correctly ---

174:

Is the set of claims listed as those of deconstructionist accurate and fair? I personally think it would be nice if there is an explanation of why deconstructionists believe in these points.

226:, does violence to the non-Euclidean freedom that deconstructionists should depend on, that is, if they could be said to depend on anything. The author is dead, long live the author! :) 1847:

You are confusing two different things. I have been very clear that when I mention philosophy, I am referring to what you call "Western Philosophy". (Itself a gross misnomer.) I am

1326:"Deconstructionists tend to insist that the proper term is deconstruction, not deconstructionism. That is, they do not want to be treated as an ism. They hate being deconstructed." - 1572:, construct alternate systems, and test their implications. Two sorts of tests might be mentioned: the specialized efforts to provide foundations for coherent bodies of thought like 1384:

It seems as though the proper name is "Deconstruction." I don't think the length of two competing/overlapping articles should choose which one is the 'mergee' and which the 'merger.'

1172:

That was me (sorry, no meta account). EB's article really is comical by comparison with this one. The last few months of intelligent edits by other users have convinced me that it

1750:

No, very bad. No school of philosophy denies the law of the excluded middle. (Derrida's deconstructionism is not considered philosophy, except of course by him and his followers.)

363:

I strongly disagree. You are using a very limited definition of the word "deconstruction". Deconstructionist themselves make no such limitation. The criticism you want to remove

124:

There were two parts (early and later parts of the article) which offered the same critique essentially saying that deconstruction is difficult to understand, if not non-sense.

966:

I will observe that no documentation for any of RK's text is apparently forthcoming (and as I noted above, the Chomsky citation is completely off-topic; it says nothing about

679:

is one of the strongest points of deconstruction. Derrida's texts, though they inevitably have blind spots, are for the most part ceaselessly self-interpreting. Often, the

1146:

Like "differance," somebody should add information concerning such words as "ecriture", "trace", "supplement", "hymen", "pharmakon", "marge", "entame", and "parergon", etc.

761:

the page), it's not my intention to flame, and I don't intend to re-edit the page again. I just want to air an opinion and solicit comment on it from the user community.

1928:. There is a very active area of research in creating logical systems that don't collapse if you have an inconsistency. Its actually useful in artificial intelligence. - 1622:

an example of the No-True-Scottsman fallacy. I am using a very specific definition of the word philosopher, and I am speaking about western philosophy. I have made this

461:. While this claim is common to psychoanalysis, the New Criticism, and deconstruction, it is not uniquely of characteristically deconstructive. Indeed, nearly all non- 1546:

Stanley Aronowitz, post-modern critic of science, irrationally claims "The point is that neither logic nor mathematics escapes the contamination." (Source: Aronowitz,

1088:

For scientists and historians, they do not deny that reality is unreachable. The ideas you mention are related to a different concept: They generally deny that we can

1358:

Removed. This is not NPOV; it's unnecessarily hostile towards common usage, not only regarding "deconstruction", but also regarding the other examples mentioned. --

1272:

As I remember, Heidegger is the one who coined the term. Derrida adopted and popularized. Could someone verify that point? How about this account, for example?

367:

refer to what many deconstructionists refer to as deconstructionism. I think you are narrowing the field to such a narrow area that you miss most of the field!

1626:

clear. In contrast, you keep redefining the word "philosopher" to include pretty much anyone who uses the word "philosophy". Being a French literary critic is

991:

Your defense of special pleading is not a valid defense. The above criticisms still stand. This article is no different than any other Knowledge (XXG) article.

1176:

possible to work on this article again without creating hostility, so I might try to address the "method" concern in a while if no one else takes it on. --

854:

of such disclaimers. Deconstructinist authors often make incredible statements, then publicly attack their critics as too stupid or naive to understand their

435:"No one can know the truth about the intentions of an author. Many deconstructionists hold that authors themselves are unconscious of their own intentions." 379:

And before anyone leaps in to start an argument by calling me a "deconstructionist," I should note that I disagree with Derrida and deconstruction about

133:

There was a part which said "major criticism" of deconstructionists was that they allowed only they could be excluded from receiving the deconstruction.

999:

It seems like this article needs to be deeply cut to even approach NPOV. Like about 1-2 paragraphs each side. I don't want to swing the machete though.

871:

I think that most long-time Knowledge (XXG) contributors will understand why such grandiose claims are unacceptable and a violation of our NPOV policy.

1726:

hold by this law of logic. All you are left with are their religious and mystical claims, and one of that has anything to do with the subject called

1300:

there are lots of unfortunate code-isms in the text (August 10, 2001). I don't care enough FOR deconstruction to do the work to make them legible.

1119:

believe that reality exists, and they believe it is fascinating that it is so hard for humans to talk about such issues. Anyway, that's my two cents.

921:

And many Muslims, and Orthodox Jews, and Ayn Rand objectivists, each have thousands of pages of their own preferred ideology! What does this prove?

1783:

Second, aside from philosophers, hard-nosed mathematicians have thought it worthwhile to explore logics that reject the law of the excluded middle.

260:

There are perhaps two questions. Does deconstruction have to do anything with philosophy? Is deconstruction a philosophy, or philosophical position?

1654:

I dunno, and I have the same question. I also want to know: where does the idea come from that scientists try to follow some mathematical-like

1011:

I just came back and have just read the article. It looks a lot better than before - when I first read it and decided to do something with it.

191:

Even for deconstructionists, not every interpretation is equally convincing, or not every meaning can be equally easily drawn from a given text.

1836:

Just for reference, the *very first line* of the Dao De Jing is "The dao is dao, but it is not dao. A name is a name, but it is not a name."

1529:

These are all serious questions, which deserve careful investigation adhering to the highest standards of scientific and historical evidence.

359:, or some other page devoted to the "science wars"?), but none of it belonged here, since none of it discussed deconstruction specifically. 335: 322: 1515:

Social ethics. What types of research ought society to encourage, subsidize or publicly fund (or alternatively to discourage, tax or forbid)?

385:

of things. I'm by no means entirely pro-deconstruction. But I have read a lot of Derrida's work and I understand it. And an article about

715:

as an article, and turn it into a redirect to the deconstructivism article? Or maybe we should do this the other way around, and turn the

178:

what I can do to give better explanations. Hopefully, criticisms of different kind, too. If someone can help on these, that would be great.

1393:

This attempt to revive the process of thinking by violating customary ideas of relevance and coherence is what he calls deconstruction.

299:

contained a critique of Derrida in the last chapter or so. Just a reminder to myself, and/or an invitation for other to check it out.

152:

I haven't even read the later sections seriously. But I would possibly have some opinions how it could be improved once I read them.

1499:

Epistemology. How can human beings obtain knowledge of truths about the world? How can they assess the reliability of that knowledge?

1105:

position to the contrary, while popular in deconstructionist circles, is an abdication of the entire process of history and science.

620:

is only a system of arbitrary symbols. Books, essays, etc., all have no meaning outside of the meaning given to them by the reader."

264:

Derrida's such remark in Grammatology). So, yes, it is perhaps a well-recognized term in philosophy, but no, perhaps not a position.

1242:

How about dividing deconstruction (as a method) and deconstructionism (as a trend/ influence in philosophy and literary criticism)?

1159: 582:, associate logocentrism with patricarchal male privilege. To describe this overlap between the search for absolute truth and the 1560:

French post-modernist Bruno Latour claims "Reality is the consequence rather than the cause of the social construction of facts."

823:

At the same time, though, I think there are some contributions you can make to others' articles. (And I would love to see those..)

777:. Again, this quotation doesn't belong in this article, because it's (a) not a real criticism and (b) not about deconstruction.) 1791:

This is in error. No mathematicians have ever proposed anything like this. You may be confusing the concept of the badly named

578:-- and indeed with scrutinizing privilege and power in all their forms. Several of Derrida's best-known works, influential in 874:

This renoval is especially appropriate, since the vast majority of philosophers, literary scholars, historians and scientists

846:

perhaps more than other philosophy, because of its emphasis on irreducible complexity and its texts' often difficult style."

683:

of a deconstructive text and the development of its argument's content are so tightly coupled that the two are inseparable.)

866:

I removed the following NPOV violations. It is not acceptable on Knowledge (XXG) to promote one's personal views as fact.

79: 71: 66: 983:

implicitly be treated as oversimplifications? That might be a bitter pill for some Knowledge (XXG) boosters to swallow.

572:. Deconstruction is often concerned with undermining claims of privileged knowledge -- the desire for which is known as 513:. Some deconstructionists write that there is no objective reality "out there", and that reality is a social construct." 1466: 1795:

with the law of the excluded middle. They have nothing to do with each other. In fact, there is nothing "fuxxy" about

568:(This is an accurate paraphrase of a common deconstructive position, though it should not be mistaken for an absolute 1919: 1510:

Individual ethics. What types of research ought a scientist (or technologist) to undertake (or refuse to undertake)?

801:

My personal response to this is to become very wary of re-editing existing articles, even those that I know -- from

38: 142:"Deconstructionist tenets" section looked a bit too strong and simplified characterization of deconstructionists. 1893: 850:

reason for it. Secondly, most historians, literature professors and scientists are critical of deconstructionism

279:

I'm not very sure about Derrida's position yet, but there is this famous phrase "there is nothing outside text" (

237:

I guess I'm going to be violent to deconstructionists. So now you play the role of defending their freedom? :-)

1941: 103:, and it looked not only POV but also rather unorganized. Here are some of the thoughts I had, and what I did: 276:

The current version of this article does not say Derrida holds the position, but "some deconstructionists" do.

1462:

Professor Sokol's library of essays on radical deconstructionist views of science, and the famous Sokol hoax

1937: 1784: 1576:

and the more common-sense examination of how a formal statement fits with what ordinary people say and do.

635: 1924:

That's one. I can come up with about five more easily. Satisfied? Also, do a google search on the term

831:

Explain that some of the common criticisms are naive or incorrect to experts' eyes, citing some sources.

650: 1439:

by Gross, P. R. and N. Levitt. 1994, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. To make myself clear, I am

155:

In any case, I am not an expert on this, so help from cooperative people would be greatly appreciated.

1722:

This is incorrect. Buddhists and Taoists who have studied Westerm philosophy and who are philosophers

1273: 1224:

semanticists, but I still bet expressing and conveying propositions was his favorite use of language.

974:

Chomsky's quote is clearly and obviously what we are talking about. Your denial of this fact is silly.

627:(The position that language's signifying function is predominantly arbitrary is a common theme of all 214:

A moment of clarity: The NPOV statement is a uniquely appropriate place to address what D means ---

1205: 47: 17: 1819: 1377: 1359: 1233: 326: 891:

seems interested in. You win, pal -- enjoy. But you're actively driving away a contributor who

632: 468: 405: 397: 184:

seems "deconstructionism" is a better term for a school of thought, rather than "deconstruction."

100: 1907:

the law of the excluded middle in the paragraph is just wrong. Also to take up your challenge.

603:

The criticism exists nonetheless; it is quite common, and should be represented in this entry.

334:

tenets, so keep or write some text about that controversy, and about what critics think of D.

1655: 1456: 1327: 1285:

I verified about the claim with more reliable sources, and changed the article accordingly. --

1000: 465: 339: 215: 211: 94: 1630:

what I am talking about. Holding Buddhist and Daoist mystical and religious beliefs also is

1158:

Someone left a note at meta about this article. I have no idea whether it's a valid concern:

1897: 1705: 1337: 926: 716: 708: 588: 413: 401: 1580:

Could the person who wrote this please explain it? What does mean? It sounds interesting.

828:

Explain more sophisticated criticisms to deconstruction, prefereably by some noted critics.

769:, by the way. The word appears nowhere in the quotation: Chomsky is really talking about " 649:

criticism, which is very different from deconstructive literary interpretation. Note that

1929: 1908: 1841: 1709: 1648: 1589: 1471: 646: 579: 477: 409: 116:

The explanations about literary criticism existed in two different parts of the article.

1491:

Ontology. What objects exist in the world? What statements about these objects are true?

1127:

RK, thanks for your detailed responce! I am slow, and I have just two things to write.

1925: 1457:

Another Review of Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

1373: 1229: 1165: 473: 447: 356: 348: 309: 1877: 653:, a version of which is compatible with deconstruction, is different from the radical 1761:

Taoism and most Buddhist schools of philosophy denies the law of the excluded middle.

1564:

I have temporarily removed this paragraph, only because it needs some clarification:

628: 521: 443: 1889: 837:

sophisticated criticisms would make the article better (more informative), I think.

404:

was removed as well. This would make a good subject for articles on the history of

1399: 1366: 1177: 984: 970:). Knowledge (XXG) ought have a real process to deal with this kind of problem. 808: 658: 654: 574: 529: 481: 428: 419: 416:. Again, it didn't belong here. There wasn't much more than a stub there anyway. 352: 314: 1476: 1451: 1901: 1885: 1881: 1452:

A Review of Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

939:

single aggressive user is forcing ill-informed changes that worsen an article.

1914: 1840:

interested in deconstructionism tend also to be interested in Eastern religion.

1792: 1573: 1147: 1076:

Could you expand on this point? I want to make sure I understand your position.

676: 642: 451: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1894:

http://www.columbia.edu/~av72/non_classical_logics/LectureNotes/Lecture_11.pdf

1727: 1286: 1276: 1248: 1188: 1136: 1040: 838: 569: 525: 300: 289: 238: 202: 156: 1461: 1161: 638:

philosophy, including deconstruction, and is also held by nearly all modern

583: 558: 462: 458: 170:

sections of the current version, here are the my questions & opinions.

1467:

Why I wrote it - about the Sokol hoax which debunked the deconstructionists

544:

position, which I summarized. You can't just delete this common criticism.

200:

literary criticism section needs rearrangements of paragraphs in general.

1531:

But they have no effect whatsoever on the underlying scientific questions

694:

I have no idea what this means. It doesn't appear to address the point.

617: 561:

is privileged; no method of learning provides authoritative information."

1365:

What about deconstructionism and relativism? Particularly in history. --

1949: 1853: 1828: 1800: 1773: 1751: 1735: 1693: 1659: 1635: 1597: 1581: 1539: 1484: 1445: 1429: 1260: 1120: 1106: 1077: 1065: 1052: 992: 959: 945: 931: 901: 884: 860: 752: 746:

As the article now stands, things look Ok. We should keep in mind the

738: 695: 639: 604: 545: 510: 497: 454: 368: 227: 1437:

Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science

1372:

We currently have this article, "Deconstructionism", in addition to

1274:

http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/english/babo/raia/deconstruction.html

480:

respectively. Neither thinker is associated with deconstruction.)

1772:

Again, see above. You are confused as to who I am speaking about.

1569: 1228:

We currently have this article, "Deconstruction", in addition to

883:"A", and why; then explain who holds point of view "B", and why. 396:

A few sentences of other text which dealt with the broadening of

680: 1477:

Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism

1948:

showing how the these are similar, and how they are diferent.

1350: 137:

including that criticism somewhere is not a bad idea, I think.

25: 1201:

This is an old talk page. For the current version, please go:

450:

writers, and also of the classic essay "The " by the seminal

1354:"reinventing" oneself -- it's all connotation, no reference. 586:

need for domination, Derrida and other authors use the word

351:. Some of that text might belong in another article (maybe 347:

of hostile sources and "criticism" that were really about

1898:

http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~petera/Padua_Lectures/lect2.html

1548:

Science as Power, p.326, Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1988)

1827:

that Derrida's argument is irrational and incoherent.

1787:

seems to be a starting point for further information.

645:. The second sentence appears to advocate a kind of 253:

Just some tentative notes on my tentative findings.

1568:

The approach within the field has been to formalize

321:

to be reasonable at least some of the time. =) See.

1878:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExcludedMiddleLaw.html

1435:People who wish to write on this topic should read 509:"No one can know anything about the true nature of 119:

I merged them under one section. Yet it needs edit.

1890:http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/html/construc.htm 1915:Michael Dummet on the law of the excluded middle 273:Do Derrida propose that reality does not exist? 1902:http://www.supschool-logic.com/files/file4.pdf 1886:http://www.cs.panam.edu/fox/CSCI6175/fuzzy.ppt 1882:http://www.austinlinks.com/Fuzzy/tutorial.html 1014:Here are some other, more specific comments. 958:apparently in your own private little world. 8: 1799:; fuzzy logic obeys all the laws of logic. 1072:readings as deconstructionists may claim." 496:deconstructionists make these same points. 308:familiarity at best with the field -- this 1667:I'm temporarily removing this paragraph: 472:criticism appears to be directed, are by 336:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold in updating pages 323:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold in updating pages 1911:denies the law of the excluded middle. 1944:? In particular, how could we give an 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1472:A Plea for Reason, Evidence and Logic 908:I will limit myself to a few remarks 7: 295:I just remembered that Walter Ong's 168:Deconstruction in literary criticism 771:poststructuralism and postmodernism 1920:More on Dummet's views on this law 803:my own scholarly work in the field 249:Re: Relation to philosophy section 24: 893:wants to help the Knowledge (XXG) 393:for sources was patently subpar. 878:deconstructionism. These people 257:Is deconstruction a philosophy? 29: 1154:Note at meta about this article 773:", as he explicitly says, not 1: 1031:deconstructionists may claim. 721:Deconstruction (architecture) 713:Deconstruction (architecture) 520:(This is a simplification of 930:claim of special privilege. 869:texts of deconstruction).... 719:article into a redirect to 1187:Glad to see you come back! 1967: 1818:difficult to understand. 1634:what I am talking about. 1402:04:48 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC) 1380:03:44 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC) 1279:22:25 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC) 1251:22:25 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC) 1236:03:44 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC) 1168:19:01, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) 1150:07:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1139:07:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1123:02:30, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC) 1109:02:24, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC) 1043:05:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1003:14:22, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC) 863:00:30, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC) 159:14:33, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC) 1942:Law of non-contradiction 1822:00:31 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1487:16:19 21 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1448:02:05 20 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1432:02:05 20 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1289:04:51 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC) 1191:12:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) 987:04:37, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC) 962:22:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC) 948:22:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC) 934:22:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC) 904:22:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC) 841:16:02, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC) 811:01:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC) 741:20:15, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)~ 442:(This is the opinion of 431:04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 422:04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 342:15:12, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) 329:05:38, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) 317:02:40, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) 303:02:20, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC) 292:02:12, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC) 1952:20:12 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1856:15:11 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1831:12:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1803:12:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1754:12:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1738:15:30 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1696:12:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1662:21:01 24 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1638:15:03 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1600:21:01 24 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1555:The Science of Pleasure 1542:16:19 21 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1332:The Doubter's Companion 1263:12:52 24 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1180:19:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) 755:20:15, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 698:15:51, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 661:04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 607:15:51, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 548:15:51, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 532:04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 500:15:44, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 484:04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 371:15:44, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) 313:polite way to proceed? 241:02:12, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC) 230:02:06, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC) 205:02:01, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC) 1938:Law of excluded middle 1785:Law of excluded middle 1096:describe reality with 281:il n'ya pas d'or texte 111:I tried to correct it. 651:social constructivism 42:of past discussions. 1734:talking about them? 1687:traditions of Asia. 1607:No true scotsman.... 727:Scylla (?) Charybdis 297:Orality and literacy 1704:subscribing to the 1206:talk:Deconstruction 18:Talk:Deconstruction 1519:Dr. Sokol writes: 633:post-structuralist 469:literary criticism 406:literary criticism 398:literary criticism 391:newspaper articles 99:I saw the article 1656:scientific method 1328:John Ralston Saul 1259:Merge completed. 852:precisely because 657:advocated here.) 466:twentieth-century 164:Deconstructionism 162:Upon reading the 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1958: 1706:no true Scotsman 927:process theology 717:Deconstructivism 709:Deconstructivism 589:phallogocentrism 414:cultural studies 402:cultural studies 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1909:Michael Dummett 1649:User:Roadrunner 1590:User:Roadrunner 1389:This sentence: 1345:In common use, 1210: 1156: 1098:total certainty 1039:Hope it helps. 1009: 729: 647:reader-response 580:feminist theory 478:Michel Foucault 410:literary theory 268:interpretation. 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1964: 1962: 1954: 1953: 1926:paraconsistent 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1868: 1867: 1862: 1860: 1858: 1857: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1805: 1804: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1756: 1755: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1698: 1697: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1674: 1673: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1602: 1601: 1585: 1578: 1577: 1562: 1544: 1543: 1535: 1534: 1526: 1525: 1517: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1501: 1500: 1495: 1493: 1492: 1481: 1420: 1419: 1414: 1413: 1404: 1395: 1394: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1374:Deconstruction 1370: 1363: 1356: 1355: 1347:deconstruction 1342: 1341: 1340: 1334: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1312: 1311: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1230:Deconstruction 1226: 1221: 1220: 1219:communication. 1211: 1204: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1182: 1181: 1155: 1152: 1144: 1142: 1125: 1124: 1111: 1110: 1081: 1080: 1069: 1068: 1056: 1055: 1037: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1008: 1005: 997: 996: 995: 976: 975: 968:deconstruction 964: 963: 950: 949: 936: 935: 923:Nothing at all 906: 905: 888: 843: 842: 833: 832: 829: 825: 824: 821: 817: 775:deconstruction 767:deconstruction 758: 757: 756: 743: 742: 728: 725: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 687: 686: 685: 684: 670: 669: 665: 664: 663: 662: 622: 621: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 596: 595: 594: 593: 563: 562: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 536: 535: 534: 533: 515: 514: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 488: 487: 486: 485: 474:Roland Barthes 448:psychoanalytic 437: 436: 424: 373: 372: 357:post-modernism 349:post-modernism 344: 331: 310:Deconstruction 305: 287: 286: 285: 284: 277: 271: 270: 269: 265: 261: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 232: 231: 208: 207: 206: 201: 198: 197: 196: 192: 185: 181: 180: 179: 150: 149: 148: 147: 140: 139: 138: 131: 130: 129: 122: 121: 120: 114: 113: 112: 101:(this version) 89: 86: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1963: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1912: 1910: 1904: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1872: 1864: 1863: 1861: 1855: 1850: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1837: 1830: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1821: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1786: 1775: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1695: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1618:Huh? This is 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1584: 1583: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1558: 1556: 1550: 1549: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1527: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1514: 1513: 1509: 1508: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1486: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1449: 1447: 1442: 1438: 1433: 1431: 1426: 1416: 1415: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1403: 1401: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1379: 1375: 1369: 1368: 1362: 1361: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1314: 1313: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1301: 1297: 1288: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1278: 1275: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1250: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1235: 1231: 1225: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1209: 1207: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1153: 1151: 1149: 1143: 1140: 1138: 1132: 1128: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1067: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1054: 1051:Sounds fine. 1050: 1049: 1048: 1044: 1042: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1007:Some critique 1006: 1004: 1002: 994: 990: 989: 988: 986: 982: 973: 972: 971: 969: 961: 956: 955: 954: 947: 942: 941: 940: 933: 928: 924: 920: 919: 918: 915: 911: 903: 898: 897: 896: 894: 887: 886: 881: 877: 872: 870: 864: 862: 857: 853: 847: 840: 835: 834: 830: 827: 826: 822: 818: 814: 813: 812: 810: 806: 804: 799: 795: 792: 786: 782: 778: 776: 772: 768: 762: 754: 749: 745: 744: 740: 735: 734: 733: 726: 724: 723:. Thoughts? 722: 718: 714: 710: 697: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 682: 678: 674: 673: 672: 671: 667: 666: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 641: 637: 634: 630: 629:structuralist 626: 625: 624: 623: 619: 615: 614: 606: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 591: 590: 585: 581: 577: 576: 571: 567: 566: 565: 564: 560: 557:"No claim of 556: 555: 547: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 531: 527: 523: 522:Immanuel Kant 519: 518: 517: 516: 512: 508: 507: 499: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 483: 479: 475: 470: 467: 464: 460: 456: 453: 449: 445: 444:Sigmund Freud 441: 440: 439: 438: 434: 433: 432: 430: 423: 421: 417: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 394: 392: 388: 384: 383: 377: 370: 366: 362: 361: 360: 358: 354: 350: 343: 341: 337: 330: 328: 324: 318: 316: 311: 304: 302: 298: 293: 291: 282: 278: 275: 274: 272: 266: 262: 259: 258: 256: 255: 254: 251: 250: 240: 236: 235: 234: 233: 229: 225: 220: 219: 218: 217: 213: 204: 199: 193: 190: 189: 186: 182: 176: 175: 173: 172: 171: 169: 165: 160: 158: 153: 144: 143: 141: 135: 134: 132: 126: 125: 123: 118: 117: 115: 110: 109: 106: 105: 104: 102: 97: 96: 87: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1945: 1936:articles on 1923: 1918: 1913: 1905: 1876: 1874:References: 1873: 1869: 1859: 1848: 1838: 1835: 1816: 1796: 1782: 1745: 1731: 1723: 1685: 1666: 1645: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1586: 1579: 1563: 1559: 1554: 1551: 1547: 1545: 1530: 1518: 1494: 1480: 1475: 1470: 1465: 1460: 1455: 1450: 1440: 1436: 1434: 1424: 1421: 1405: 1396: 1388: 1371: 1364: 1357: 1346: 1331: 1320: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1271: 1247: 1227: 1222: 1212: 1208: 1200: 1199: 1196: 1173: 1157: 1145: 1141: 1133: 1129: 1126: 1116: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1082: 1070: 1057: 1045: 1038: 1013: 1010: 1001:Williamv1138 998: 980: 977: 967: 965: 951: 937: 922: 913: 909: 907: 892: 889: 879: 875: 873: 867: 865: 855: 851: 848: 844: 807: 802: 800: 796: 790: 787: 783: 779: 774: 770: 766: 763: 759: 747: 730: 720: 712: 705: 655:subjectivism 587: 575:logocentrism 573: 463:biographical 425: 418: 395: 390: 386: 381: 380: 378: 374: 364: 353:Sokal affair 345: 340:Williamv1138 332: 319: 306: 296: 294: 288: 280: 252: 248: 247: 223: 216:Williamv1138 212:Williamv1138 209: 167: 163: 161: 154: 151: 98: 95:Williamv1138 91: 60: 43: 37: 1797:fuzzy logic 1793:fuzzy logic 1574:mathematics 1338:Montréalais 816:discussion. 677:reflexivity 636:continental 584:masculinist 452:New Critics 389:that cited 36:This is an 1930:Roadrunner 1842:Roadrunner 1728:philosophy 1710:Roadrunner 1708:fallacy. 1418:objective. 1412:sciences." 910:en passant 675:(In fact, 570:relativism 526:philosophy 387:philosophy 1811:anything. 1090:precisely 748:structure 643:linguists 640:Chomskyan 559:knowledge 459:Beardsley 446:and many 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 618:Language 128:wording. 88:Untitled 1946:example 1820:Ryguasu 1400:Atorpen 1378:Ryguasu 1367:Ed Poor 1360:Ryguasu 1351:faddish 1234:Ryguasu 1178:Rbellin 1094:exactly 985:Rbellin 914:display 809:Rbellin 659:Rbellin 530:Rbellin 511:reality 482:Rbellin 455:Wimsatt 429:Rbellin 420:Rbellin 327:Ryguasu 315:Rbellin 39:archive 1680:false. 1148:COGDEN 1102:do not 1019:sides. 876:reject 166:& 146:other. 1570:logic 1505:true. 1349:is a 1287:Tomos 1277:Tomos 1249:Tomos 1189:Tomos 1137:Tomos 1041:Tomos 1023:does. 839:Tomos 412:, or 400:into 301:Tomos 290:Tomos 239:Tomos 203:Tomos 157:Tomos 16:< 1940:and 1624:very 1197:--- 1166:Talk 1162:Dori 1092:and 856:real 791:know 681:form 631:and 476:and 457:and 382:lots 325:. -- 1849:not 1732:not 1632:not 1628:not 1620:not 1441:not 1425:not 981:all 338:. 1950:RK 1854:RK 1829:RK 1801:RK 1774:RK 1752:RK 1736:RK 1724:do 1694:RK 1660:RK 1636:RK 1598:RK 1582:RK 1540:RK 1485:RK 1446:RK 1430:RK 1336:- 1330:, 1261:RK 1174:is 1164:| 1121:RK 1117:do 1107:RK 1078:RK 1066:RK 1053:RK 993:RK 960:RK 946:RK 932:RK 902:RK 885:RK 880:do 861:RK 753:RK 739:RK 696:RK 605:RK 592:.) 546:RK 528:. 498:RK 408:, 369:RK 365:do 355:, 228:RK 224:is 76:→ 616:" 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index