Physicist lampoons humanities scholars.
Comments
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Let me get this straight: Sokal writes a bunch of nonsense about reality not being real; then he *falsely* attributes that nonsense to writers like Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault; and then that is supposed to demonstrate "the charlatanism and nonsense" of Derrida and Foucault? If I write a bunch of nonsense, and then falsely claim that Einstein wrote it -- does that mean I have demonstrated the "charlatanism and nonsense" of Einstein? Could it possibly demonstrate anything at all, other than the fact that these sad guys at Social Text really, really wanted to be "interdisciplinary" and include a scientist in their pages? I have recently (and for the second time) challenged Dr. Sokal to a debate. He has repeatedly claimed that nobody has responded to his challenge to debate this matter. We'll see if he responds this time. I doubt he will. But if any Sokal-admirer wishes to step in and take his place -- to demonstrate the “meaninglessness” or “charlatanism” of writers like Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault, I certainly invite you to do so. This is an excerpt from my latest missive to Dr. Sokal: Dear Dr. Sokal -- Jacques Derrida is probably the most prominent target in your hoax, and his name inevitably comes up in every discussion I read about "the Sokal affair." In a written statement after your hoax, you assert that it confirms that it was not simply your "own inadequacy" that made you "unable to make head or tale of jouissance or differance." The reason you mention differance, of course, is because it is one of the few neologisms coined by Derrida. (You knew this, of course, because you have read the relevant literature whereof you speak; your scholarly integrity and scientific rigor would naturally preclude you from making pronouncements -- or even very profitable insinuations -- about authors you have never read.) The proposal, as I say, is simple: All you have to do is email back to me anything Derrida has written that you consider to be "meaningless," and I will be able to explain what he's talking about -- as per your challenge. You can simply cut and paste something if you'd like -- it would only take a minute. I can also perfectly "defend" whatever "nonsense" you think you see in Michel Foucault, Judith Butler or Hayden White as well. Since it's all reportedly nonsense, you should be able to stick your finger in any of these texts and find a "meaningless" paragraph rather quickly. In any case: you will agree with me, I'm sure, that it would be the height of intellectual dishonesty if you were to publicly assert, yet again, that nobody has taken you up on your offer to explain or "defend" any of the "prominent French intellectuals" you parody in your hoax. I look forward to our discussion!
Posted by Ulrich on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 10:57 AM
Just in order to not let the wrong claim in the first sentence of the previous comment be uncorrected: Sokal's article did not make up any citations and did not falsely attribute anything; all quotes and citations in his article were accurate, as can be easily checked by comparing with the given original sources. What he did was to draw conclusions from these quotes that were (to a natural scientists understanding: obviously) nonsense; and his criticism of Social Text is about the fact they did not complain or note that his own alleged conclusions (which the article clearly presents as his, not somebody else's, thoughts) ar non sequiturs. What he in the fact also claims that some of the quotes (which were quoted at length, i.e. not torn out of context) contain striking non sequiturs in themselves.
Posted by Simon Anders on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:01 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Comments
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Let me get this straight: Sokal writes a bunch of nonsense about reality not being real; then he *falsely* attributes that nonsense to writers like Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault; and then that is supposed to demonstrate "the charlatanism and nonsense" of Derrida and Foucault? If I write a bunch of nonsense, and then falsely claim that Einstein wrote it -- does that mean I have demonstrated the "charlatanism and nonsense" of Einstein? Could it possibly demonstrate anything at all, other than the fact that these sad guys at Social Text really, really wanted to be "interdisciplinary" and include a scientist in their pages? I have recently (and for the second time) challenged Dr. Sokal to a debate. He has repeatedly claimed that nobody has responded to his challenge to debate this matter. We'll see if he responds this time. I doubt he will. But if any Sokal-admirer wishes to step in and take his place -- to demonstrate the “meaninglessness” or “charlatanism” of writers like Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault, I certainly invite you to do so. This is an excerpt from my latest missive to Dr. Sokal: Dear Dr. Sokal -- Jacques Derrida is probably the most prominent target in your hoax, and his name inevitably comes up in every discussion I read about "the Sokal affair." In a written statement after your hoax, you assert that it confirms that it was not simply your "own inadequacy" that made you "unable to make head or tale of jouissance or differance." The reason you mention differance, of course, is because it is one of the few neologisms coined by Derrida. (You knew this, of course, because you have read the relevant literature whereof you speak; your scholarly integrity and scientific rigor would naturally preclude you from making pronouncements -- or even very profitable insinuations -- about authors you have never read.) The proposal, as I say, is simple: All you have to do is email back to me anything Derrida has written that you consider to be "meaningless," and I will be able to explain what he's talking about -- as per your challenge. You can simply cut and paste something if you'd like -- it would only take a minute. I can also perfectly "defend" whatever "nonsense" you think you see in Michel Foucault, Judith Butler or Hayden White as well. Since it's all reportedly nonsense, you should be able to stick your finger in any of these texts and find a "meaningless" paragraph rather quickly. In any case: you will agree with me, I'm sure, that it would be the height of intellectual dishonesty if you were to publicly assert, yet again, that nobody has taken you up on your offer to explain or "defend" any of the "prominent French intellectuals" you parody in your hoax. I look forward to our discussion!
Posted by Ulrich on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 10:57 AM
Just in order to not let the wrong claim in the first sentence of the previous comment be uncorrected: Sokal's article did not make up any citations and did not falsely attribute anything; all quotes and citations in his article were accurate, as can be easily checked by comparing with the given original sources. What he did was to draw conclusions from these quotes that were (to a natural scientists understanding: obviously) nonsense; and his criticism of Social Text is about the fact they did not complain or note that his own alleged conclusions (which the article clearly presents as his, not somebody else's, thoughts) ar non sequiturs. What he in the fact also claims that some of the quotes (which were quoted at length, i.e. not torn out of context) contain striking non sequiturs in themselves.
Posted by Simon Anders on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:01 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
