What´s your take on the Sokal Affair

[Anonymous No.11253766]

>The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the Social Text spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist. On the day of its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax.

>The hoax sparked a debate about the scholarly merit of commentary about the physical sciences by those in the humanities; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor.

[Anonymous No.11253767]

>What´s your take on the Sokal Affair
my diary desu

[Anonymous No.11253769]

Proof that we'll never get published.

[Anonymous No.11253778]

>>11253769
if it saves our butt from your postmodern shit, so be it!

[Anonymous No.11253792]

>>11253766
cont´d

>The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy. The editors of Social Text liked my article because they liked its conclusion: that "the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project" [sec. 6]. They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion.

[Anonymous No.11253984]

>>11253766
>>11253792
This is the lite version of /pol/‘s endless “It’s okay to be white” prank psy-ops — an act performed in bad faith with the intent of trying to shame one’s ideological opponents.

“Why,” the physicist asks, “Do they fall for such ridiculous drivel?” while putting the weight of his name and credentials behind drivel and pushing it to try and prove a point rather than engaging in any meaningful critique of ideology.

[Anonymous No.11253989]

Derrida was right pissed about it because no one took him seriously after it

[Anonymous No.11254002]

>>11253984
get over leftist snowflake

[Anonymous No.11254005]

>>11253984
>rather than engaging in any meaningful critique of ideology.
oy vey

[Anonymous No.11254008]

>>11253984
go back to r/socialism

[Anonymous No.11254014]

>>11253984
Sure is summer in here

[Anonymous No.11254058]

>>11253984
leftist cuck

[Anonymous No.11254147]

>>11253984
imagine being THIS spooked by the /pol/ boogeyman

[Anonymous No.11254156]

>>11253766
The only thing it proved was that even small journals need peer review and shouldn't be bullied into not doing so.

[Anonymous No.11254182]

it was a very embarrassing moment for the humanities.
HOWEVER, the lack of peer review in most journals is astonishing. id wager that at least half of articles are pushed due to connections. just bc academics are smart doesnt mean theyre not as corrupt as the rest of the population. this hoax thing could easily be done for every discipline

[Anonymous No.11254189]

He was right but it should have been done 30 years earlier. Too long has shit like Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze gone uncalled for their bullshit.

There is literally a text generator that can write just as coherently as these hacks. Even these articles are enough to fool people who studied post-modern philosophy for years.
http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

[Anonymous No.11254198]

>>11253766
>It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct.

It is though. The map is not the territory

[Anonymous No.11254216]

>>11254198

[Anonymous No.11254217]

>>11253984
>rather than engaging in any meaningful critique of ideology.
That only works if there's something !eaningful to critique, and that can't be said about the vast majority of continental posturing.

[Anonymous No.11254246]

>>11253766
>submit fake paper to a journal known to have shoddy review procedure
>fake paper gets published
>"haha humanities btfo got 'em lol totally mugged lmfao"

[Anonymous No.11254251]

>>11253766
i'm glad that based SCIENCE guy btfo all that nonsense about philosophy so i can go back to watch rick and morty and i don't have to read books

[Anonymous No.11254254]

>>11254251
Hello, Mrs. DuPoint

[Anonymous No.11254269]

>>11254246
His goal was to get journals to start reviewing what they publish and he largely succeeded until internet journals started happening.

[Anonymous No.11254273]

you know, he did some trolling. It's a disgusting trolling.
but, sometimes, in really rare times, trolling can be the best answer, even the only answer.

imagine the world that every person who wants to be Intellectual should become a sophist, only most sophisticated answer affirmed as truth, and sophists only listen sophisticate answer.

in that case, the Diogenes-kind, who only do troll such as "WASSUP FUCKERS LOOK AT THIS PLATONISIC HUMAN", become the closest man of the truth, and progress.

[Anonymous No.11254292]

>>11254273
>ah shit, here comes diogenes...
>YO YO YO YO WHAT IT IS MOTHERFUCKERS

[Anonymous No.11254296]

>>11254251
your fault for having philosophy so worthless that it can be btfo by based science man with little effort

[Anonymous No.11254301]

>>11254296
based
logic, reason, science ftw

[Anonymous No.11254311]

>>11254301
Are you even going to make an attempt to understand what he's saying
This has nothing to do with science taking precedent over philosophy

[Anonymous No.11254340]

>>11253984
And your post is the integral version of /pol/'s apologistic hivemind mentality of
>Woooooooow but I was just following the authority's orders
>I'm innocent, I did what I did out of good faith, fucking jews and their psy-op tricks

[Anonymous No.11254347]

>>11254311
>Are you even going to make an attempt to understand what he's saying
why should I when he is the first to not understand the things he's criticizing in the first place

[Anonymous No.11254356]

>>11254217
>read a small fraction of continental philosophy
>thinks he has the authority to criticize the vast majority of continental philosophy
Post your goodread account, you fucking hack. I bet you haven't even read 200 books in your life.

[Anonymous No.11254370]

>>11253766
My take is, the journal wasn't peer reviewed, this means nothing.
Two sociologists however have recently done the same thing in a peer reviewed journal, and it worked. A much more interesting case, unfortunately I forgot their name. They were parodying maffesoli. It is still, in my opinion, a marginal phenomenon. Shit research, as the recent trainwreck around reproducibility in psychology, is everywhere in social sciences ; and still, they are necessary as hell, and still, naturalistic methods or Popperian experimental fetishism doesn't work in social sciences.
The way out would be to restructure from the ground up international academia, but you'd need a revolution for that :^)

[Anonymous No.11254371]

I think you should read whatever you want and believe it if you want. You're already making a decision about what you do and do not read based on your preconceived notions about the author and the publication. Then, once it passes that first test, you make the decision about whether or not you believe what you've read. This can be based on how factual you perceive it to be or if it aligns with what you perceive to be true or both. Ultimately it makes little difference. Yes, this applies to scientific journals as well. This entire conversation is more about why people write these articles and why people read them than the pitfalls of the system. 'Scholarly merit' is the first layer of mental defense / outward appearance.

Anyone who has needed to present something academically, professionally or politically know that's it's about carefully presenting what you want to the viewer to see, and how they should see it. Nobody would pay or grade you for printing out a bunch of facts onto a piece of paper or reading a slideshow to them. They simply don't want you to do it, you're wasting their time! Your task is INTERPRETATION. Now while I can't make certain statistics support my claims without lying, I can conveniently ignore them. Almost any subject today is so technical and specialized that we depend on 'subject matter experts' to tell us what we need to know. We trust them to support our goals and do what's best for us. This trust is external but related to their professional output. It is preconceived and either bolstered or destroyed by their professional output.

I know I'm not saying this concisely but my point is that we go to people we trust to hear what we want to hear. This trust goes up and down with facts but will always be subjective.

[Anonymous No.11254391]

>>11254356
>having a goodreads account.
What a surprise, the reader of continental philosophy uses books as a fashion accessory.

[Anonymous No.11254395]

>>11253766
it's as relevant as the bogdanov affair. just shows that academia has its head completely up its ass everywhere.

[Anonymous No.11254397]

>>11253984
>while putting the weight of his name and credentials behind drivel
Because physicists have this thing called the scientific process, which doesn't rely on anybody's credentials. Peer review is cancer by the way because it is moving away from the standard of reproducibility to consensus by comittee.

[Anonymous No.11254406]

>>11254395
Cornell physics professor Paul Ginsparg writes that the contrast between the cases is plainly evident:
"here, the authors were evidently aiming to be credentialed by the intellectual prestige of the discipline,
rather than trying to puncture any intellectual pretension."

[Anonymous No.11254409]

>>11254189
>enter site
>Derrida quote in it's first paragraph
Lmao

[Anonymous No.11254422]

>>11254371
>read whatever you want and believe it if you want
>you make the decision about whether or not you believe what you've read
>you perceive to be true or both


>this as well applies to scient


MRW

[Anonymous No.11254429]

Here you go, 15 years later:

https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf

They've obviously retracted it once the hoax was revealed. Luckily it's still up, asremoving it from the archive would have done even more harm that keeping it with the giant red RETRACTED stamp.

[Anonymous No.11254447]

Anyone who’s not a pleb knows academia is bullshit. I don’t even care for or have read the major postmodern philosophers everyone has criticized, but the Sokal affair was basically “I’m gonna submit this shitty article to a shitty magazine and they’ll accept it HAHA POSTMODERNISTS BTFO”. Some stupid (even if renowned) postmodern academic journal doesn’t necessarily reflect poorly on, say, Derrida or Foucault. Bringing up the Sokal affair seems the epitome of the Reddit STEM-tard “haha look at this thing that happened now I can discount all postmodern philosophy and feel justified for not engaging with it (not that I ever was going to anyway, I already have a bias towards it)!! Haha science wins out over stupid philosophers again!!” Not knowing how much philosophers have informed great statesmen and people in law throughout history and will continue to do so.

[Anonymous No.11254463]

>>11254447
>Not knowing how much philosophers have informed great statesmen and people in law throughout history and will continue to do so.
If the statesmen that have come to prominence since Foucault and Derrida are any indication, then it's hard to give them any praise as thinkers.

[Anonymous No.11254467]

>>11254406
It's obviously not the same, but in both cases so-called experts were unwilling or unable to spot fabrications hidden under layers of jargon and reject submissions that fall apart under the most basic level of scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.11254472]

>>11254447
Stay mad battyboi. It wasn't a science vs philosophy trope, it was a hoax meaning to illustrate how there are very few gatekeepers in established philosophy circles and how important it is to have standards because unlike science, philosophy isn't self-regulating.

[Anonymous No.11254541]

I will never understand how certain people I don't want to name love to bring up the Sokal affair as proof of the downfall of the humanities when Sokal intentionally sent his shit to a non-reviewed paper, while the fucking Bogdanoffs managed to almost get their doctorate titles and published in peer review academia. The biggest difference no one will bring up is that those lads were probably only properly reviewed because they look like europop ken dolls otherwise they would probably pass all the same.

[Anonymous No.11254547]

>>11253766
literally the academic version of fedora tipping
i love watching the french get buttblasted tho
i agree with the last line of summerfag here >>11253984
Sokal could've dismissed them on better grounds. Alot of post-Satrean continental philosphy is just bad interpretations of Heidegger, highly contentious readings of Nietzsche, and naive understandings of Kant. The better critique would be to take them at their words and attack from the sources, or the equivalent of "granting" the tradition itself and then showing how it's still wrong. But hey Sokal is a scientist so what do you expect?

[Anonymous No.11254556]

>>11253766
You never hear about continental fags shitting on stemfags, but always the other way. Really makes you wonder why are stemfags so anxious and insecure.

[Anonymous No.11254571]

>>11254463
You have a short view of history. Anyway, great or bad, philosophers influence whole societies, influence scientists, and, as I’ve said, influence politicians. STEM-tards think their hyper-rationality is a boon when really it just betokens a narrow worldview. Sometimes seem to me like the equivalent of monkeys with calculators, hypertrophied fact-memorizing skills which make them feel superior to everyone else. Small, very limited worldview. I’m not talking about you since you just made a small post, but of what I see behind this prevailing mindset.

>>11254472
No one worth their salt cares about “philosophy circles”. The people we remember are individual, great philosophers. It definitely is a win on the side of the hoaxers, but not a particularly impressive or meaningful one, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.11254582]

>>11254571
>No one worth their salt cares about “philosophy circles”. The people we remember are individual, great philosophers.
spotted the american

[Anonymous No.11254602]

>>11254571
>No one worth their salt cares about “philosophy circles”
You're retarded. The academic journals are some of the main gatekeepers of academic output and academia is the main place where the majority of output is produced. So yes, they create a prestige/social-reward system in which there is no concern for coherence and intellectual rigour and it flows from the professors, to the students, down to your retarded self on a Patagonian basket weaving forum.

[Anonymous No.11254607]

>>11254602
>>11254582
in the long term what he says is true though. Nobody now gives a shit what the academy in Nietzsche's day thought

[Anonymous No.11254608]

>>11254571
>equivalent of monkeys with calculators, hypertrophied fact-memorizing skills which make them feel superior to everyone else.
>>11254582
also an /r/iamverysmart

[Anonymous No.11254623]

>>11254582
Not an argument

>>11254602
It’s not as if great philosophers will magically stop existing because of shitty philosophy journals and academia. Most great philosophers went against the prevailing orthodoxy of the day anyway. In 500 years, if humanity is still recognizably around, the Sokal affair will be a footnote, an incident of some historical imps squabbling and feuding pointlessly. It won’t detract from those we’ll retroactively call the great philosophers of the age.

[Anonymous No.11254635]

>>11254623
>Not an argument
so I was right then

[Anonymous No.11254673]

>>11253984
no dude its just that left wing academia literally practiced that little discernment (see the CCRU, the judith butler book) w/r/t whether the content of what was in vogue to discuss could realistically stand up on not lol. its not le racist /pol/tard chuds

[Anonymous No.11254685]

>>11254673
*in the 90s
forgot to mention that in my post

[Anonymous No.11254695]

>>11254635
Still not an argument.

>>11254608
It’s pretty much true. There’s a rabid population of Reddit STEMtards who seem to feel amazingly brilliant and well-rounded for neglecting emotion and intuition, or the traits to more be found in the humanities. They basically parade their lack of well-roundedness and their prejudice to stretching their boundaries. We could be glorifying well-roundedness and perhaps leading to the birth of more figures like Descartes and Leibnitz, who were mathematicians and philosophers, or figures like Goethe or even da Vinci. But this narrow sectarian petty small-mindedness, this emphasis on specialization, this split between the humanities and the sciences is growing further and further. It seems a genuine sign of the decline of civilization and a well-rounded intelligentsia.

[Anonymous No.11254770]

>Le Monde asks for my comments on Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont’s book Impostures intellectuelles, although they consider that I am much less badly treated in it than some other French thinkers. Here is my response:

>This is all rather sad, don’t you think? For poor Sokal, to begin with. His name remains linked to a hoax—”the Sokal hoax,” as they say in the United States—and not to scientific work. Sad too because the chance of serious reflection seems to have been ruined, at least in a broad public forum that deserves better.

>It would have been interesting to make a scrupulous study of the so-called scientific “metaphors”—their role, their status, their effects in the discourses that are under attack. Not only in the case of “the French”! and not only in the case of these French writers! That would have required that a certain number of difficult discourses be read seriously, in terms of their theoretical effects and strategies. That was not done.

>As to my modest “case,” since you make a point of mentioning that I was “much less badly treated” than some others, this is even more ridiculous, not to say weird. In the United States, at the beginning of the imposture, after Sokal had sent his hoax article to Social Text, I was initially one of the favorite targets, particularly in the newspapers (there’s a lot I could say about this). Because they had to do their utmost, at any cost, on the spot, to discredit what is considered the exorbitant and cumbersome “credit” of a foreign professor. And the entire operation was based on the few words of an off-the-cuff response in a conference that took place more than thirty years ago (in 1966!), and in which I was picking up the terms of a question that had been asked by Jean Hyppolite.1 Nothing else, absolutely nothing! And what is more, my response was not easy to attack.

>Plenty of scientists pointed this out to the practical joker in publications that are available in the United States, and Sokal and Bricmont seem to recognize this now in the French version of their book—though what contortions this involves. If this brief remark had been open to question, something I would willingly have agreed to consider, that would still have had to be demonstrated and its consequences for my lecture discussed. This was not done.

[Anonymous No.11254778]

>>11254770
>I am always sparing and prudent in the use of scientific references, and I have written about this issue on more than one occasion. Explicitly. The numerous places where I do speak, and speak precisely, about the un-decidable, for instance, or even about Godel’s theorem, have not been referenced or visited by the censors. There is every reason to think that they have not read what they should have read to measure the extent of these difficulties. Presumably they couldn’t. At any rate they haven’t done it.

>One of the falsifications that most shocked me consists in their saying now that they have never had anything against me (cf. Liberation, October 19, 1997: “Fleury and Limet accuse us of unjustly attacking Derrida. But no such attack exists”). Now they are hastily classifying me on the list of authors they spared (“Famous thinkers like Althusser, Barthes, Derrida, and Foucault are mainly absent from our book”). This article in Liberation is a translation of an article in the Times Literary Supplement, where my name, and only mine, was opportunely omitted from the same list. In fact this is the sole difference between the two versions. So in France, Sokal and Bricmont added my name to the list of honorable philosophers at the last minute, as a response to embarrassing objections. Context and tactics obligeni More opportunism! These people aren’t serious.

>As for the “relativism” they are supposed to be worried about—well, even if this word has a rigorous philosophical meaning, there’s not a trace of it in my writing. Nor of a critique of Reason and the Enlightenment. Quite the contrary. But what I do take more seriously is the wider context—the American context and the political context—that we can’t begin to approach here, given the limits of space: and also the theoretical issues that have been so badly dealt with.

>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 field of philosophical thought. Sometimes, for fun, I also take seriously the symptoms of a campaign, or even of a hunt, in which badly trained horsemen sometimes have trouble identifying the prey. And initially the field. (emphasis mine -ed)

>What interest is involved for those who launched this operation in a particular academic world and, often very close to that, in publishing or the press? For instance, a news weekly printed two images of me (a photo and a caricature) to illustrate a whole “dossier” in which my name did not appear once! Is that serious? Is it decent? In whose interest was it to go for a quick practical joke rather than taking part in the work which, sadly, it replaced? This work has been going on for a long time and will continue elsewhere and differently, I hope, and with dignity: at the level of the issues involved.

(this is derrida btw)

[Anonymous No.11254840]

i´m the op, i didn´t want this thread to be a stems vs humanities, i just wanted to know how many of you were aware of this incident and the opinion of it, just chill the fuck out

t.someone who´s studying economics

[Anonymous No.11254960]

>>11254840
And yet the Sokal Affair has been and is used to foster this divide. See >>11254189 and its picture. Not to mention that you brought up in the OP

>The hoax sparked a debate about the scholarly merit of commentary about the physical sciences by those in the humanities; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general

and, finally, that the hoax concerned philosophers/a philosophical journal not understanding science well enough, and was done by a scientist. It runs through the whole affair quite vividly, the implicit STEM v. humanities debate, and I brought up it’s annoyingly shallow how many pseuds use it for that.

[Anonymous No.11254996]

>>11253769
if anything doesnt the sokal affair prove its astonishingly easy to get published in academic journals?

[Anonymous No.11255019]

>>11254582
spotted the obsessed.

[Anonymous No.11255042]

Sokal was a genius. Id like to shake his hand and buy him a bear

[Anonymous No.11255055]

>>11254005
maths is not a proof of objectivity and there are situations where 2+2 does nor equal 4 and where that statement has no meaning.

[Anonymous No.11255133]

>>11255042
>buy him a bear

[Anonymous No.11255169]

>>11254347
>dude you just can't understand its like so deep man
cringe

[Anonymous No.11255189]

>>11254571
>STEM-tards think their hyper-rationality is a boon when really it just betokens a narrow worldview. Sometimes seem to me like the equivalent of monkeys with calculators, hypertrophied fact-memorizing skills which make them feel superior to everyone else
>it's another "i took a physics class in high school and all science is bullshit" episode

[Anonymous No.11255203]

>>11255189
Science is not bullshit. The minds of some of its uncritical glorifiers are filled with bullshit, however.

[Anonymous No.11255271]

>>11255203
"hypertrophied fact-memorizing" is not relevant to science, and the only people who think it is are people who (barely) passed their high school physics classes by rote memorization of equations and assume everyone else did the same

[Anonymous No.11255349]

>>11253766
I find it pretty sad that his name is known not for being linked to a scientific paper or cited numerous times in his field, but instead it's linked to "hoax".

[Anonymous No.11255403]

>>11254005
>>11254008
>>11254014
>>11254058
>>11254147
Touched a nerve there eh pol?

[Anonymous No.11255410]

>>11255271
Indeed, the greatest scientists have had very intuitive minds, and sometimes even pretty interesting philosophical or mystical worldviews. Those I call STEMtards, however, are rarely the same.

[Anonymous No.11255419]

>>11253766
Pretty much the moment post-structuralism, ergo most of what post-modernism mostly stood out for, was officially ended

[Anonymous No.11255430]

>>11255203
the actual process of science deserves to be glorified because of its unbelievable sucesses. It's people that turn science into a religion, or that unquestioningly accept conclusions without proper evidence that are the problem.

[Anonymous No.11255516]

Sokal never claimed it "destroyed" post-modernism. All it proved it that a certain pay-to-play journal was shit.

[Anonymous No.11255517]

>BTFOs Descartes
>dominates the next 300 years of science
>pure volcel
>still believes in a bunch of kooky mystical shit on the side
The true STEMchad

[Anonymous No.11255570]

>>11255055
It was a metaphor you dim fuck. ''put 2 and 2 together'' isn't literal.

[Anonymous No.11255581]

>>11255055
In what possible scenario could two plus two not equal four, assuming "two" still means this many: || and "four" equals this many: ||||

[Anonymous No.11255642]

>>11255430
Does it deserve to be so glorified? It is a great process which has led to a lot of advancements, obviously. The fact that we’re posting on the Internet and have so many luxuries from scientific research and technological advancement precludes me from criticizing science as a whole, obviously. What I criticize is the glorification of the scientific method and (explicit or implicit) devaluing of all other paths to knowledge and/or ways of human self-development. Not to mention the heavily reductionistic and materialistic biases implicit in the huge culture industry making a religion of science, when scientists can’t even define matter, energy, time, space, and consciousness, for instance. Glorifying how much we’ve learned and can learn with the scientific method — even claiming that we can learn EVERYTHING there is to learn with it — blinds people from the stupidly obvious fact that, again, we don’t even understand the nature of matter, time, space, energy, and consciousness.

Intuition is itself a huge part of scientific discovery. An uncreative person could have the same information as Einstein or Newton but not make the leap to the seemingly irrational, counterintuitive ideas — a force called gravity, the relativity of space and time — which has made them famed as geniuses. Watson had his dream about the double helix structure of DNA, represented by a spiral staircase, and Kekule discovered the structure of the benzene molecule in a dream of a snake biting its own tale (incidentally the symbol of the Ouroborus found in various world cultures, which could lead to an interesting comparison with Jung’s idea of the archetypes and the collective unconscious). Certainly they had to do scientific and mathematical work to conclusively verify these visions, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that they directly SAW the truth in their subconscious, and this seems to be something which science can’t entirely lay a claim on. Ancient Buddhist ideas are supported by modern neuroscience, as another example. Ideas discovered by contemplation and intuition are later verified by science, but many try to claim the scientific method has a monopoly on all knowledge. Hell, you could come to the same conclusion as a lot of modern psychological researchers on cognitive biases have by reading ancient Buddhist and Sufi parables about how our self-centeredness can deceive us.

The scientific method is great, but doesn’t have an exclusive monopoly to knowledge. I’ve read anecdotal reports online of scientists doing psychedelic drugs, having interesting (not earth-shattering, but interesting) ideas on them, then later verifying them through research and writing papers on them. This is getting to be a long post but I just want to give as many examples as possible why scientism, reductionistic materialism, a certain type of skepticism is a narrow worldview.

[Anonymous No.11255645]

>>11255517
'He wasn't the first scientist, but the last magician.'

[Anonymous No.11255646]

>>11255517
The ultimate chad virgin

[Anonymous No.11255657]

>>11255642
I have no disgreement with you there. the people who codified the scientific process were all deeply religious anyway.

I just think some people have a tendency to bash science because of the 'dude science' types, when it really is one of the most impressive things humans have done. A proper understanding of reality should incorporate an understanding of science, but definitely not be limited to it.

[Anonymous No.11255665]

>>11255657
Definitely.

[Anonymous No.11255680]

>>11254182
couple of things:
it was actually great for the humanities (if youre aren't in the pomo camp)
Peer review isnt the backbone of academia in the way some ppl in the popular culture think it is. In really dynamic fields most stuff is half out of date by the time its published anyway

[Anonymous No.11255692]

>>11255642
>(incidentally the symbol of the Ouroborus found in various world cultures, which could lead to an interesting comparison with Jung’s idea of the archetypes and the collective unconscious
stopped reading

[Anonymous No.11255702]

>>11253766
Seems like every few years there’s a scandal where some scientific journals fall for a similar sting. The most recent one I remember just started talking about the force partway through. Should all science journals be discredited, or only the ones that accepted the fake papers? The Sokal affair would be more convincing if his paper wasn’t completely ignored after publication until he announced it was a hoax.

[Anonymous No.11255708]

>>11255516
>>11255702
Yeah the science journals that usually get hit are also play to pay. This isn’t unique to postmodernism or the humanities.

[Anonymous No.11255753]

>>11255702
>>11255708
Its not "pay to play", its about the lack of peer reviews, social text had no peer reviewers for Sokal's article yet they published it anyway, same goes for a lot of scientific journals, they are pressured to keep pumping content to stay afloat in their field since they are relatively small journals, unlike big ones that are expected to respect academic standards

[Anonymous No.11256930]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/#SciWarCri
>Deleuze was one of the targets of the polemic in Sokal and Bricmont 1999. As much of their chapter on Deleuze consists of exasperated exclamations of incomprehension, it is hard to say what it is that Sokal and Bricmont think they have accomplished.

[Anonymous No.11256939]

>>11253984

Shameful post lad

[Anonymous No.11256944]

>>11254251

Postmodernism is not philosophy

[Anonymous No.11256950]

>>11255517

>stole calculus from leibniz
>behaved like a total cunt about it

Newton was a piece of shit