Oxman's dissertation was submitted to the architecture department. It's likely that none of her reviewers were actually equipped or motivated to know which aspe

Oxman's dissertation was submitted to the architecture department. It's likely that none of her reviewers were actually equipped or motivated to know which aspects of it were nonsense. Architecture as an academic discipline suffers from having practitioners with science-envy, but who don't have the training, the disposition, or the incentives to practice real science. The real end product of Oxman's labor is not a paper that advances science in some way: it's a beautiful piece of sculpture that will be acquired by MoMA. She's actually good at this part of the job! Unfortunately she (along with many others within the field) feels compelled to use science-y jargon to dress up what she's doing.