He seems to be against (or at least hinder) constructive communication between sciences and cultural theories. Does he suppose that there is a single perfect language that explain, describe, or predict everything? 'Species' and 'population' have at least different three meanings in different sciences, in thermodynamics, in statistics, and in biology. They may come from a similar root (perhaps from natural philosophy to statistics to thermodynamics and from to statistics to biology) but they have different nuances and usage in each discipline. 'Species' has at least three different definitions in biology alone (Mayr 1970).

Further reading:

• Gas on the Brain New Scientist (3/10/98) The interactive effects of neurons and a long range neurotransmitter in the brain. "This demostrates the power provided by having two distinct yet interacting processes at play."
• Eco, U. (1993:1995) "The search for the perfect language". Semiotic (structural linguistic) account of philosophical searches for a perfect language. The conclusion is (perhaps) that, through hyper-complexity, no single language structure can finitely describe the universe. Instead we should look at the poly-linguistic aspects of natural languages.
• Shiva, V. (1993) "Monocultures of the Mind" The ecological and social (mainly agricultural) effects of trying to describe the world in a single language. The effects of a 'dominant knowledge' as opposed to 'local knowledges'.
• Casti, J.L. (1991) "Searching for Certainty: what scientists can know about the future." Distinctions between explanation and prediction.

Sokal, A.D. (1996) "Transgressing the boundaries: toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity", Social Text, 46/47, Vol. 14, pp.217-252

• His home page