> To answer these questions, this article engages feminist geography and broader feminist literature and draws on nearly 1000 h of public observations of dogs a

> To answer these questions, this article engages feminist geography and broader feminist literature and draws on nearly 1000 h of public observations of dogs and their human companions conducted at three dog parks in Southeast Portland, Oregon, beginning on 10 June 2016, and ending on 10 June 2017. In Sokal's single hoax in 1996 he (and his buddies, I guess) made a claim, followed it by a non-sequitur of true but uninteresting sentences about physics, then repeated the claim. It was a sandwich with no meat in it, and the (small, non-peer-reviewed) post-modern journal ate it up. Sokal wanted to show that a certain style of post-modern writing substituted scientific jargon for an argument (or at least it used references to esoteric scientific fields as pretentious, uninteresting metaphors). The elegance of parodying this style was that his submission contained no data at all. It wasn't merely that the conclusion of the submission wouldn't be replicated. It was that any conscious human should notice the complete lack of supporting evidence for the claim! The upshot of the journal accepting the article was that "the emperor had no clothes," so to speak. Sokal went on to write a book showing how several prominent post-modern thinkers used scientific non-sequiturs to make their non-scientific ideas sound more weighty. (Just as he had in his hoax.) These three authors, however, are going a different route from Sokal-- specifically, one that provides fake data as evidence of a claim. (Or I guess they could have actually sat at dog parks for 1000 hours, but it doesn't matter for the point I'm making.) By providing fake data, this hoax passes an initial filter which the Sokal hoax did not-- namely, the filter that should reject submissions which lack any supporting evidence whatsoever. That means this hoax only reveals a lack of replication and/or verification, whereas the Sokal hoax reveals a lack of both peer review and basic reading comprehension even by a non-physicist. That makes this a weaker class of hoax than the Sokal hoax. Finally, the authors purport to be going after an entire "ideological slant" in academia. Whatever one thinks of that aim, it is enormous and amorphous when compared to the narrow aim of Sokal keeping scientific jargon from being misused/misplaced. So to recap: * 1996: strong hoax successful against a single pomo journal, weak but persuasive claim against coopting scientific jargon for non-scientific aims * 2018: weak hoax successful against 7 of (total number?) journals, strong and unpersuasive claim against all leftist academic fields Now I'm curious-- did anyone in the late 90s criticize Sokal's hoax on the grounds that his careful constraints would be ignored by future pranksters? Edit: clarification