I removed a claim that Deconstruction is focused on to the exclusion of other practices, and that this has had particular impact in claims about science. This is largely because I think it's total nonsense. Deconstruction's heyday is now 20+ years in the past. Contemporary literary analysis certainly owes it a debt, the same way it owes any past movement it evolved from a debt, but calling it the primary practice of literary theory is inaccurate - pull up a list of papers at the MLA conference this January, and you'll see relatively little pure deconstruction.
The application to science is even trickier - most of the science claims like Sokal and Bricmont don't even tackle Derrida directly. It's a claim that has much more truck on, say, Jacques Lacan or Luce Irigaray than here. There, at least, there's a valid debate to be had. Here, however... eh. It's misleading to claim this is a major issue with Deconstruction. If you want to put it back in, specific examples would really help. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)