Citations:chaophilia


 * 1997, International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies, Diogenes (Casalini Libri), issues 177–180, page 179
 * This being said, how can we not deplore the all too frequent distortions of “importations” by anthropologists who think they are “hardening” their discipline by consistently using the language of the “hard” sciences? This is a particularly pernicious form of popularization, often not a conscious one on the part of the importers themselves, but one for which many popularizers bear responsibility, as do even some “hard” researchers who yearn after a larger public – who trade in ignorance and carefully maintain their investment … Whence the “Gödelism,” “chaophilia,” and other “complexolatries” of certain social scientists, who are doing nothing to help their own disciplines: being sciences like any other sciences, although more difficult than the other sciences, these disciplines must try all the harder to appear cautious and rigorous in their reciprocal trespassings upon certain other sciences; nevertheless such collaborations remain possible and useful as long as there is no “mispopularization.”