> Kind of depends on who is judging the papers. That would mostly be physics phds and professors versus literature phds and professors. But if you want other

> Kind of depends on who is judging the papers. That would mostly be physics phds and professors versus literature phds and professors. But if you want other examples, the group of people who keep failing to distinguish others' bullshit from "real science" thing are the social sciences [1][2][3]. And if you consider management "science" as a social science, there's roughly a century of this (most higher institutions do consider management science a social science) [4] At least French literature is studying fiction, whereas the social sciences claim that they're a valid science studying real, repeating (non-fiction) phenomena. > It's not even a statement. Unless a statement is very different from what Google answers when I type in "define:statement" I'm going to go with that it is a statement And judging by the downvotes, it's indeed not allowed. > Mistaking it for a statement seems to start with believing no one could possibly view the a sweet to the hypothetical question posed different than you do, and then build on that error. This sentence does not parse. Could you perhaps rephrase it ? I find the statement by Paul Graham obviously defines a "total order" [5], which means I could even translate that statement into logical symbols if you like. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair [2] https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/10/03/33299646/academic-hoax-reveals-deep-problems-in-social-sciences https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/10/03/33299646/academi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project [4] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/12/not-so-fast https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/12/not-so-fast [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order