= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Qualitatively Confused - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (77)
What comes to mind is the Alan Sokal hoax and the editors who were completely taken in by it; the subject matter was this sort of anti-realism.
Yes, because Sokal didn't achieve anything actually noteworthy. He deliberately chose a very bad and ill-regarded journal (not even peer-reviewed) to hoax. Don't believe the hype.
Postmodernism contains stupendous quantities of cluelessness, introspection and bullshit, it's true. However, it's not a useless field and saying trivially stupid things is not "archetypal" any more than being a string theorist requires the personal abuse skills of Lubos Motl. Comparing the worst of the field you don't like to the best of your own field remains fallacious.
Sokal also revealed the hoax as soon as his piece was published. He didn't allow time for other people in the field to notice it.
Didn't know that. Fair enough.
To be fair to Sokal, he didn't make such a huge fuss about it either; it was a small prank on his part, just having fun with people who were being silly. The problem is that the story resonates ("Sokal hoax" ~= "slays dragon of stupidity") in ways that aren't quite true.