"These debates have a complex history: libraries full of epistemological works! Before setting up a contrast between the savants, the experts, and the others, they divide up the field of science itself. And the filed of philosophical thought. Sometimes, for fun, I also take seriously the symptoms of a campaign, or even a hunt, in which badly trained horsemen sometimes have trouble identifying the prey. And initially the field." {Derrida, 2005, Pp. 71-72}

Nobody likes an armchair quarterback.

These debates, by which we mean, those that had been going on long before Sokal and Bricmont came along, were a field of play. Now, by a field of play, I'm being deliberately vague. While hunting can be deadly serious, so too can it be fun. Sokal and Bricmont however, were not aquatinted with the rules, the field, or even an interest in really participating in the game. They were, much like a sandbagger, in it for their own fun, one born of resentement, rather than much else.

Not of course to excuse many of those who were playing the game of "sociology of science" also out a spirit of resentement. Many (perhaps we should say We) weren't taking it seriously enough you might say.

"A 'deconstruction' of natural science, were it undertaken seriously and with a sufficient sense of gravity, would be good news." {Caputo, 1997, Pp. 73}

"A deconstructive approach to science would keep the scientific community open to the upstarts, the new ideas, the audacious young graduate students who come up with unexpected hypotheses that at first look a little funny and then a little brilliant." {Caputo, 1997, Pp. 73}

"A deconstructive approach to science would be good news and hard science." {Caputo, 1997, Pp. 73}

The serious game of deconstruction for Derrida is, "above all, 'responsible'" {Caputo, 1997, Pp. 77}. This is where the drunk hunter will likely be "saying whatever comes into your [their] head," {Caputo, 1997, Pp. 79} and is not really someone who ought to be playing in the first place. Playing this game well, means that neither they (those crazy science/engineer types} nor us can be armchair quarterbacks. We're going to have to get in there and risk (oh, dear) implicating one another a bit, because, this game also means that we (that is, you and I) will not gain "absolute transcendence" {Caputo, 1997, Pp. 79}, and we're both going to be implicated in the play.

And this is where Ms. Ronell blows us (me) away.

"Both irony and testing involve a certain tolerance for risk-taking and fule the warping edges of temporal acceleration. Both produce novel experiences of breakdown and disruption. One can try to pull the brakes and recuperate irony's unpredictable consequences, shrinking back from an awareness of its destructive propensities - this is the case of Peter Szondi and Wayne Booth - or one can try to ride it like a rodeo bease, until one is thrown off, dashed, kaput." {Ronell, 2005, Pp. 16}