OT: Sokal's Hoax (esp for Kismet)

Joined
Jan 26, 2002
Messages
2,737
Why esp for Kismet?

As I recall, he once expressed an interest in gravity, which is plays a peripheral role in this affair.

I missed this when it occurred, several years ago, but it's still quite amusing and instructive, I think.

Background (from one perspective)

:http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/rosen.html

A Physics Prof Drops a Bomb on the Faux Left

* A spoof written in cultural theorists' jargon is published as the real thing.

by Ruth Rosen

Op-ed, Los Angeles Times, Thursday, May 23, 1996, page A11

When I was a child, my favorite story was "The Emperor's New Clothes." A chorus of adults praises the Emperor's new wardrobe, but a child blurts out the truth: The Emperor is in fact stark naked. From this tale, I learned that adults could be intimidated into endorsing all kinds of flummery.

The longer I teach at the university, the more I return to this story for consolation.
Last week, a little known academic scandal made its way to the front page of the New York Times. The scandal actually began about a decade ago, when a growing cadre of Academic Emperors began empire-building within American universities. They claimed that their scholarship, shielded from outsiders by impenetrable theory and incomprehensible prose, constituted a radical political movement and that they were the true theorists of the "academic left."

It took a New York University physicist named Alan Sokal to expose the unearned prestige that the Academic Emperors have heaped upon themselves. A self-described progressive and feminist (to which I can attest; I helped with his exposé), Sokal became fed up with certain trendy academic theorists who have created a mystique around the (hardly new) idea that truth is subjective and that objective reality is fundamentally unknowable. To Sokal, the denial of known reality seemed destructive of progressive goals.

To his credit, he didn't just sit and fume. After immersing himself in the theorists' arcane literature, Sokal wrote a brilliant parody titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity." Penned in unintelligible prose, heavily documented with lengthy footnotes, Sokal's article basically argued against the "Enlightenment idea" that there exists an external and knowable world. Physics, the physicist implied, was simply another field of cultural criticism.

When I first obtained a copy of Sokal's still unpublished parody, it seemed no worse than much of the dense writing that passes for cutting-edge theoretical criticism. I delighted in his ability to mimic the imponderable syntax and jargon of contemporary theoretical academic writing:

"In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science -- among them, existence itself -- become problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has profound implications for the content of a future post-modern and liberatory science."

Sokal decided to submit his gibberish to Social Text, a prestigious academic journal that has promoted the new cultural criticism as a radical political movement. Without soliciting a scientific opinion from an outside reader, the Social Text editors published Sokal's article in a special spring issue devoted to the "science wars," the quarrel between social theorists and actual scientists.

Sokal disclosed his deception in the current issue of the academic magazine Lingua Franca. He explained that he had been disturbed "by the decline in intellectual rigor in the trendier precincts of the American academic humanities" and had "decided to try an admittedly uncontrolled experiment: Would the leading North American journal of cultural studies ... publish an article consisting of utter nonsense if it sounded good and flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions? The answer, unfortunately, is yes."

Satire is often the best way of revealing the truth (recall Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"). Sokal's spoof exposed the hypocrisy practiced by these so-called cultural revolutionaries. They claim to be democratizing thought, but they purposely write in tongues for an initiated elite. They claim that their work is transformative and subversive, but they focus obsessively on the linguistic and social construction of human consciousness, not on the hard reality of people's lives. Their claim to originality is particularly offensive to historians who have always known that social structure and cultural meaning change over time. With few exceptions, their pretensions obscure their nakedness.

Yes, I know that the conservative right may use Sokal's parody to further attack "tenured radicals." But if the progressive left is to survive and be credible, it must withstand the glare of public scrutiny and be worthy of people's respect.

We shall soon see which ideas can pass the giggle test.

Ruth Rosen, a professor of history at UC Davis, writes regularly on politics and culture.


A number of links (some of which unfortunately are now dead) are available here, including one to the at times quite funny parody creation that started all the hub-bub.

http://www.drizzle.com/~jwalsh/sokal/articles/articles.html

also here:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

Not everyone's cup of tea to be sure, but some may find the material interesting, entertaining, and wonder what the Hell some of that stuff "taught" at universities is. I did when I was attending one, and I wonder even more now.
 
you mean we shouldn't feed the starving poor so we can use them for food?

hmmmm. gotta re-think my charitable contribution program. :rolleyes:


So...gravity exists, but we don't know why, and those who might have conjectured why can only do so if they say that time and space (two key measurements for us human beinks) change depending on where you are looking?

I love it, Firkin. Thank you. :)


Kis
We have so much.

As for Professor Sokal, there are few things in life as satisfying as hearing the "pop" of the pomposity bubble of the condescending.
 
For those with a deeper interest in this drama, there are a couple of good books out:

Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science
Alan D. Sokal, Jean Bricmont. Sokal himself elaborates on his hoax.

The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy
Editors of Lingua Franca.

Though I do think postmodern deconstruction does have its merits, I'm firmly on the side of the empirical scientists in this debate.
 
Sokal writes quite well, this later response had me laughing on the floor (my emphasis):

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/afterword_v1a/afterword_v1a_singlefile.html

...Alas, the editors of Social Text have discovered that my article, ``Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity'', which appeared in Social Text #46/47, is a parody. In view of the important intellectual and political issues raised by this episode, they have generously agreed to publish this (non-parodic) Afterword, in which I explain my motives and my true views.1 One of my goals is to make a small contribution toward a dialogue on the Left between humanists and natural scientists -- ``two cultures'' which, contrary to some optimistic pronouncements (mostly by the former group), are probably farther apart in mentality than at any time in the past 50 years.

Like the genre it is meant to satirize -- myriad exemplars of which can be found in my reference list -- my article is a mélange of truths, half-truths, quarter-truths, falsehoods, non sequiturs, and syntactically correct sentences that have no meaning whatsoever. (Sadly, there are only a handful of the latter: I tried hard to produce them, but I found that, save for rare bursts of inspiration, I just didn't have the knack.) I also employed some other strategies that are well-established (albeit sometimes inadvertently) in the genre: appeals to authority in lieu of logic; speculative theories passed off as established science; strained and even absurd analogies; rhetoric that sounds good but whose meaning is ambiguous; and confusion between the technical and everyday senses of English words.2 (N.B. All works cited in my article are real, and all quotations are rigorously accurate; none are invented.)...


Ouch--when goaded, the dude is brutal!

Giggle, snort.

[Note: Social Text apparently later changed its mind about pblication and the article was published elsewhere]
 
Back
Top