Interesting. Agreed on LOL. However, just to play devil's advocate – algebraic topology was directly related to the story so I guess it needed explaining, wher

Interesting. Agreed on LOL. However, just to play devil's advocate – algebraic topology was directly related to the story so I guess it needed explaining, whereas the Sokal Hoax was invoked by a correspondent > Chris Eliasmith, a theoretical neuroscientist at the University of Waterloo, didn’t find much to be interested about in his first reading: “It strikes me as an over-stated and minor contribution,” he wrote in an email. Peter Latham, a neuroscientist at the University College London went one step further, saying that it “reads a bit like an Alan Sokal hoax” Furthermore, the explanation —referring to the NYU mathematical physicist who got a bogus article about quantum physics as a "social construct" published in an academic journal — doesn't convey the salient details about the Sokal Hoax (the style of language used, the reliance on science analogies to convince a non-science audience, the purpose of the hoax (to make a point about what they saw as a certain type of bullshit article, and so on). But I totally take your point – and together with the other reply I stand corrected.