> The journal in question isn't even peer reviewed. If wikipedia is to be believed the journal switched to a peer review based process due to the Sokal affair.

> The journal in question isn't even peer reviewed. If wikipedia is to be believed the journal switched to a peer review based process due to the Sokal affair. > He wrote a crappy article for a crappy journal, Clearly it's a crappy journal, but unfortunately it's associated with some big names like Duke [1] and Columbia [2]. > I do not find this incident particularly disturbing, and I don't think it says much about the humanities. Maybe not Sokal's article, but certainly their books says a lot about the humanities. As Sokal, Bricmont and Dawkins and many others have pointed out many of these big names in the humanities were simply talking out of their a. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Text [2] http://www.socialtextjournal.org/about/index.php#contact http://www.socialtextjournal.org/about/index.php#contact