There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
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. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)