4 ms·

> I assume the panel was successful, although I never heard from the organizer or any of the other panelists inquiring why I didn’t make it. It would be intere

> I assume the panel was successful, although I never heard from the organizer or any of the other panelists inquiring why I didn’t make it. It would be interesting to know what the organizers themselves thought of the abstract, because the editors' response to the Sokal article was quite amazing [1, 2]. [1] http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf [2] http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/reply.html http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/reply.html

avs733 11y ago
I've read about this incident before, and as someone who transitioned from the 'hard' sciences (specifically semiconductor engineering) to the 'soft' or social sciences (specifically education and economics) it has been a bit disquieting. First, for Dr. Sokal, I am a bit...bemused or surprised I guess I would say...at what seems like a quite childish simplification and overall process. This was not a peer review journal, as is implied in most coverage of the incident. Further, I strongly suspect (as I have seen from my former colleagues when I discuss my new field with them) Sokal showed an enormous amount of hubris (as Robbins and Ross note "What Sokal’s confession most altered was our perception of his own good faith as a self-declared leftist...On the other hand, we recognize that professional scientists like Sokal do feel that their beliefs and their intellectual integrity are threatened by the diverse work done in the field of science studies"). To attempt to speak ill of a field you know little about and yet still find to be trivial or unrigorous is puzzilingly tactless and embarrassingly presumptuous. It is a bit as if Sokal found himself laughing at the naked emperor, unaware that it was a mirror. Second, I have always wondered what about what this incident, and its references, says about other disciplines understanding and approach to social sciences and fields like philosophy and psychology. We tend to have a natural search for truth as scientists...one of the fundamental questions though is what is meant by truth and, further, what is the interrelationship between a truth and the context in which it is observed? Engineering colleagues I have look at the fact that things are rethought, changed, dismissed, in conflict, can't be confirmed, etc. is seen as a flaw whereas I see it a reality. Much of the social sciences is closer to the quantum domain. True social experiments are difficult or legally/ethically untennable. When they are conducted, they are often conducted in ways that try to minimize outside variables...but reality isn't that simple. Human beings don't share a universal 'ground state' from which decisions or behaviors emminate.
- ubasu 11y ago
  You can read Sokal's various commentaries on this topic. His point was that many philosophers tried to make grandiose statements about science and mathematics that did not make sense at all. The philosophers were making statements based on their imagination of what certain terms meant, and not on the actual meaning of those terms. See the links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10715872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10715872
- jackcosgrove 11y ago
  "To attempt to speak ill of a field you know little about and yet still find to be trivial or unrigorous is puzzilingly tactless and embarrassingly presumptuous." This is one of the most common academic tactics: to claim that those who are outside the field are ignorant of it and therefore cannot pass judgment. As someone who claims to be a scientist, you should know that this is an appeal to authority and that a scientist would welcome criticism from anyone regardless of training or background provided their argument was well-argued and supported by evidence.
  - hueving 11y ago
    The person you are replying true believes that truth is objective and therefore obviously cannot commit a logical fallacy.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    "All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
  - avs733 11y ago
    I understand your point, I just disagree. As you point out in the your last sentence, there is an enormous and quite uncanny trench between principled and unprincipled critique. One comes from a place of understanding and heartfelt disagreement, one does not (although one is often presumed by authors). While the former is possible, I would confidently say the both Sokal's and the commenter's came from the later. Edit to add: Sokal's entire proposition (based in frankly an attempt to embarrass a field) exposes the lie underneath the straw man being built to support him.

avs733 11y ago

I've read about this incident before, and as someone who transitioned from the 'hard' sciences (specifically semiconductor engineering) to the 'soft' or social sciences (specifically education and economics) it has been a bit disquieting. First, for Dr. Sokal, I am a bit...bemused or surprised I guess I would say...at what seems like a quite childish simplification and overall process. This was not a peer review journal, as is implied in most coverage of the incident. Further, I strongly suspect (as I have seen from my former colleagues when I discuss my new field with them) Sokal showed an enormous amount of hubris (as Robbins and Ross note "What Sokal’s confession most altered was our perception of his own good faith as a self-declared leftist...On the other hand, we recognize that professional scientists like Sokal do feel that their beliefs and their intellectual integrity are threatened by the diverse work done in the field of science studies"). To attempt to speak ill of a field you know little about and yet still find to be trivial or unrigorous is puzzilingly tactless and embarrassingly presumptuous. It is a bit as if Sokal found himself laughing at the naked emperor, unaware that it was a mirror. Second, I have always wondered what about what this incident, and its references, says about other disciplines understanding and approach to social sciences and fields like philosophy and psychology. We tend to have a natural search for truth as scientists...one of the fundamental questions though is what is meant by truth and, further, what is the interrelationship between a truth and the context in which it is observed? Engineering colleagues I have look at the fact that things are rethought, changed, dismissed, in conflict, can't be confirmed, etc. is seen as a flaw whereas I see it a reality. Much of the social sciences is closer to the quantum domain. True social experiments are difficult or legally/ethically untennable. When they are conducted, they are often conducted in ways that try to minimize outside variables...but reality isn't that simple. Human beings don't share a universal 'ground state' from which decisions or behaviors emminate.

ubasu 11y ago
You can read Sokal's various commentaries on this topic. His point was that many philosophers tried to make grandiose statements about science and mathematics that did not make sense at all. The philosophers were making statements based on their imagination of what certain terms meant, and not on the actual meaning of those terms. See the links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10715872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10715872
jackcosgrove 11y ago
"To attempt to speak ill of a field you know little about and yet still find to be trivial or unrigorous is puzzilingly tactless and embarrassingly presumptuous." This is one of the most common academic tactics: to claim that those who are outside the field are ignorant of it and therefore cannot pass judgment. As someone who claims to be a scientist, you should know that this is an appeal to authority and that a scientist would welcome criticism from anyone regardless of training or background provided their argument was well-argued and supported by evidence.
- hueving 11y ago
  The person you are replying true believes that truth is objective and therefore obviously cannot commit a logical fallacy.
- mcguire 11y ago
  "All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
- avs733 11y ago
  I understand your point, I just disagree. As you point out in the your last sentence, there is an enormous and quite uncanny trench between principled and unprincipled critique. One comes from a place of understanding and heartfelt disagreement, one does not (although one is often presumed by authors). While the former is possible, I would confidently say the both Sokal's and the commenter's came from the later. Edit to add: Sokal's entire proposition (based in frankly an attempt to embarrass a field) exposes the lie underneath the straw man being built to support him.