• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Knowledge Technology & Policy >The Academic Brand of Aphasia: Where Postmodernism and the Science Wars Came From
【24h】

The Academic Brand of Aphasia: Where Postmodernism and the Science Wars Came From

机译：失语症的学术品牌：后现代主义与科学大战的发源地

获取原文
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

To review, Jakobson claimed that, based upon Kurt Goldstein's evidence, aphasia patients cannot grasp the metaphoric meaning of words. He then announced that this absence proved figurative speech was the dominant and most characteristic principle of language, thereby universalizing what is studied by literary scholars. Elsewhere Canguilhem was claiming, in the grand style of a literary critic quoting Freud, or a postmodernist quoting Foucault, that Goldstein's discoveries proved that a norm could be nothing more than a name. Both Jakobson and Canguilhem made it easy to substitute a speculation for empirical evidence and even to make it appear that terminological magic can terminate the need for systematic empirical evidence. Verbiage thereby begat verbiage, for having little need to cite Jakobson or Canguilhem anymore, humanities scholars can easily make the pseudo-science from which the poststructuralist project grows disappear. It especially can make disappear the embarrassing fact that the only empirical evidence which might be cited to back up poststructuralist claims about the unreliability of representation has been faked. This last disappearance is the most important, for the last thing the humanities want, or can afford, is for scientists to be in a position to evaluate its claims. As mentioned several times, when Jakobson announces that tests meant to determine naming abilities demonstrates something about an inability to use synonyms, he in effect is announcing that these tests prove something which they did not test for. If this is not junk science enough, Jakobson junks it up even more by lumping together data from one set of patients with data which he derives from from a second set of patients separated from the first by fifty years and hundreds of miles. Such is the incredible naivete of the humanities that not only did Jakobson not see there was something wrong with such inanities, but no humanist scholar has ever called attention to it. What would happened if it were a requirement that scientists form a majority on such people's tenure committees?
机译：回顾一下，雅各布森声称，基于库尔特·戈德斯坦的证据，失语症患者无法掌握单词的隐喻含义。然后，他宣布，这种缺席证明了比喻性语言是语言的主要和最典型的原理，从而普及了文学学者研究的内容。 Canguilhem在其他地方以文学评论家引用弗洛伊德（Freud）或后现代主义者引用福柯（Fouucault）的宏伟风格宣称，戈德斯坦的发现证明了规范无非就是一个名字。雅各布森（Jakobson）和坎吉尔海姆（Canguilhem）都可以轻松地将推测替换为经验证据，甚至使术语魔术似乎可以终止对系统经验证据的需求。这样一来，生词就变成生词了，因为不再需要引用Jakobson或Canguilhem了，人文学科的学者可以轻易地使后结构主义计划从其发展的伪科学消失。特别是它可以使这个令人尴尬的事实消失，因为唯一可以用来支持后结构主义者关于表示不可靠的主张的经验证据是伪造的。最后的消失是最重要的，因为人类希望或可以承受的最后一件事是让科学家能够评估其主张。正如多次提到的那样，当雅各布森宣布旨在确定命名能力的测试表明无法使用同义词时，他实际上是在宣布这些测试证明了他们未测试的内容。如果这还不够垃圾科学，Jakobson会将来自一组患者的数据与来自第二组患者的数据（与第一组患者相距五十年，相距数百英里）相结合，将其进一步融合在一起。这真是人文科学的天真无邪，不仅雅各布森没有看到这种无能为力有什么问题，而且没有人文主义的学者曾经呼吁对此予以关注。如果要求科学家在此类人的任期委员会中占多数，会发生什么？

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号