Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5088132" data-attributes="member: 87792">Good will and sheer incompetence.&nbsp; There is no way that paper could have been put together by anyone with even a cursory understanding of either mathematics or physics.&nbsp; The Social Text editors were composing an issue on Science Wars (their term).&nbsp; And that it made it through any sort of editing process (as it did) shows very clearly that the editors, despite being prepared to blather about the sociology of science for pages, had absolutely no understanding of any modern mathematics or physics.For that matter, if Sokal's quotes are fair and accurate, could someone take away Luce Irigaray's keyboard every time she tries to write something even vaguely concerning the sciences please?That was Sokal's goal, granted.&nbsp; He succeeded far more comprehensively than that.&nbsp; If he'd succeeded in a small, out of the way journal that was just publishing random articles it would have shown very little.&nbsp; But the article of Social Text was on &quot;Science Wars&quot; - their term of choice.&nbsp; Apparently they enjoyed the war as long as it was them firing on scientists.&nbsp; They &quot;engaged in some speculation about his intentions, and concluded...&quot; that the response was quite clearly not to show the article to anyone who understood anything about the science he was talking about.&nbsp; Or to show anyone who understood anything about science the rest of the article.&nbsp; Apparently studying and making war on science is best done by people with no understanding of it or even the language of science (i.e. mathematics).Hardly routinely.&nbsp; But that's why he submitted, granted.&nbsp; What he actually hit was something far more damning.Schon is out and out fraud.&nbsp; There are also very few tell-tales in any one of his papers.&nbsp; Sokal's is littered with tell-tales.&nbsp; It was designed to not be hard to spot.&nbsp; Schon's was designed to be as hard to spot as possible.One suspected that after a patently absurd hoax (relating the axiom of choice and the axiom of equality to feminist theory) was revealed it was still a result of his changing his mind.Point.Which is itself the biggest metanarrative since the Watchmaker Universe.&nbsp; Possibly bigger.Oh, probably not.&nbsp; It's you claiming that just getting it published was the core issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5088132, member: 87792"] Good will and sheer incompetence. There is no way that paper could have been put together by anyone with even a cursory understanding of either mathematics or physics. The Social Text editors were composing an issue on Science Wars (their term). And that it made it through any sort of editing process (as it did) shows very clearly that the editors, despite being prepared to blather about the sociology of science for pages, had absolutely no understanding of any modern mathematics or physics. For that matter, if Sokal's quotes are fair and accurate, could someone take away Luce Irigaray's keyboard every time she tries to write something even vaguely concerning the sciences please? That was Sokal's goal, granted. He succeeded far more comprehensively than that. If he'd succeeded in a small, out of the way journal that was just publishing random articles it would have shown very little. But the article of Social Text was on "Science Wars" - their term of choice. Apparently they enjoyed the war as long as it was them firing on scientists. They "engaged in some speculation about his intentions, and concluded..." that the response was quite clearly not to show the article to anyone who understood anything about the science he was talking about. Or to show anyone who understood anything about science the rest of the article. Apparently studying and making war on science is best done by people with no understanding of it or even the language of science (i.e. mathematics). Hardly routinely. But that's why he submitted, granted. What he actually hit was something far more damning. Schon is out and out fraud. There are also very few tell-tales in any one of his papers. Sokal's is littered with tell-tales. It was designed to not be hard to spot. Schon's was designed to be as hard to spot as possible. One suspected that after a patently absurd hoax (relating the axiom of choice and the axiom of equality to feminist theory) was revealed it was still a result of his changing his mind. Point. Which is itself the biggest metanarrative since the Watchmaker Universe. Possibly bigger. Oh, probably not. It's you claiming that just getting it published was the core issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification