Social Text, Sokal--A Modest Question

[Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt]

Adam writes:

> I also think that the "well, we were trying to molllify the physicists" is
> a terrible, terrible argument.  Even if one (almost wrote "you" again
> there!) *is* trying to heal a disciplinary rift does not mean that a sucky
> paper should get published merely because it comes from the "other side."
> Crappy work is crappy work and has no business being published no matter
> *who* wrote it.  And Sokal's point is well taken, I think, that if the work
> is so impenetrable as to make ascertaining its crappiness impossible to the
> review board, it should be the board's responsibilty to find someone who
> can penetrate it before blithely slapping it on paper.  What kind of
> editorial policy is "we don't know what the hell this means, so we hope our
> readers like it" ?

Yet I think one of the most interesting questions here is whether they 
would have published the paper if it had not been by a scientist 
(read: non-philosopher). If yes, then the joke is on the editors, if 
no, the joke is on both - Sokal for thinking that he was taken 
seriously, the editors for publishing a sub-standard paper merely 
because it was by a scientist (no special concessions for scientists 
are necessary, I'd think).

hg
hag at iafrica.com