Sokal again. Drat!

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 MASCARO at HUMnet.UCLA.EDU wrote: (among other things)

> what about scientific frauds like Piltdown Man, a constructed hoax that 
> was soberly accepted for decades because, among other things, it fit nicely w/ certain 
> current social constructions (read Stephen Jay Gould on the Piltdown Man story, 
> implicating Tel. De Chardin and others).

The Weinberg article doesn't ignore earlier hoaxes of the kind John
mentions. Generally hoaxes _are_ bad, W. seems to feel, but Sokal is an
exception. "The difference is that Sokal's hoax served a public
purpose, to attract attention to what Sokal saw as a decline of
standards of rigor in the academic community, and for that reason
it was disclosed immediately by the author himself."

Well, maybe so. But, when you think about it, Piltdown also may have
served, in some small way, to test the rigor with which _another_ branch
of the academic community was pursuing its responsibilities. Were the
"social constructions" John mentions too rigidly held. Was the wakeup
call necessary and ultimately beneficial?

I'm pushing the point a little hard, I know. Faking scientific or any
kind of evidence _isn't_ a good idea. And immediate confession _can_ be 
a sign the Sokal hoax had good intentions--regardless of how
malicious it seemed.

But is there a slight element in Sokal/Weinberg thinking
of a double standard? That maybe the humanities side of the aisle
has to be guarded a little bit more closely than the science side?

Wish I could think of a modern physics hoax comparable to Piltdown
to round out my meditations. The fact I can't may be further indicative
of something.

Wish I knew.

Anyway, it's a good question.

					P.