- Sokal affair
The Sokal affair (also Sokal's hoax) was a
hoax by physicistAlan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of thepostmodern cultural studies journal "Social Text " (published byDuke University Press ). In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics atNew York University , submitted a paper for publication in "Social Text", as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." [cite web
url = http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html
title = A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies
accessmonthday = April 3
accessyear = 2007
author = Alan D. Sokal
last = Sokal
first = Alan
authorlink = Alan Sokal
work = "Lingua Franca"
year = 1996
month = May]The paper, titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative
Hermeneutics ofQuantum Gravity " [cite web
url = http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
title = Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
accessmonthday = April 3
accessyear = 2007
author = Alan D. Sokal
last = Sokal
first = Alan
authorlink = Alan Sokal
date=1994-11-28, revised 1995-05-13, published May 1996
work =Social Text #46/47 (spring/summer 1996)
publisher =Duke University Press
pages = pp. 217-252] , was published in the Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars " issue of "Social Text ", which at that time had no peer review process, and so did not submit it for outside review.Fact|date=August 2008 On the day of its publication, Sokal announced in another publication, "Lingua Franca", that the article was ahoax , calling his paper "apastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense", which was "structured around the silliest quotations I could find about mathematics and physics" made by postmodernist academics.The resulting debate focused on the relative scholarly merits or lack thereof of sociological commentary on the physical sciences and of postmodern-influenced sociological disciplines in general, as well as on academic ethics, including both whether it was appropriate for Sokal to deliberately defraud an academic journal, as well as whether "Social Text" took appropriate precautions in publishing the paper.
Claims in the paper
Arguing that
quantum gravity has progressive political implications, the paper claims that theNew Age concept of the "morphogenetic field" (not to be confused with thedevelopmental biology use of the same term) could be a cutting-edge theory ofquantum gravity . It concludes that, since "physical 'reality' ... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct", a "liberatory science" and "emancipatory mathematics" must be developed that spurn "the elite caste canon of 'high science'" for a "postmodern science [that] provide [s] powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project".Footnotes contain more obvious jokes, such as one that comments:
Fallout
Asserting that such concepts are blatantly absurd, Sokal thus concluded that the journal ignored
intellectual rigor and "felt comfortable publishing an article onquantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject."In their defense, the editors of "Social Text" stated that they believed that the article "was the earnest attempt of a professional scientist to seek some kind of affirmation from postmodern philosophy for developments in his field" and that "its status as parody does not alter substantially our interest in the piece itself as a symptomatic document." [http://www.math.tohoku.ac.jp/~kuroki/Sokal/sokaltxt/00005.txt] They charged Sokal with unethical behavior and suggested they only published the article as it was because Sokal refused to make changes they suggested and because it was of relevance to a special issue they happened to be preparing.Sokal argued that this was the whole point — the journal published articles not on the basis of whether they were correct or made sense, but simply because of who wrote them and how they sounded.
In an interview with
National Public Radio 's "All Things Considered " Alan Sokal said that he was prompted to conduct his "experiment" after reading "". [http://zpedia.org/Physics_Professor_Parodies_Linguistic_Absurdities]In 1998, Sokal co-authored "" (originally published in French as "Impostures Intellectuelles" and in English outside the U.S. as "Intellectual Imposters") with
Jean Bricmont . The book contains a long list of extracts of writings from well-knownintellectual s containing what Sokal and Bricmont characterize as blatant abuses of scientific terminology. Finally, Sokal and Bricmont give a critical summary ofpostmodernism and finish by criticizing thestrong program ofsocial constructionism in thesociology of scientific knowledge .Postmodern philosopher
Fred Newman responded to the Sokal affair in his paper "Science Can Do Better than Sokal: A commentary on the So-called Science Wars," presented at a conference in Spring 1997 on Postmodernism and the Social Sciences, at theNew School for Social Research , where Sokal was a discussant. Newman calls for a coming together of science and postmodernism -- arguing that postmodernism is not a critique of science, per se, but of the inappropriate application of the scientific paradigm to psychology.The affair spilled out of academia and into the mainstream press, and commentators are divided on the level of its consequences. Anthropologist
Bruno Latour , one of those singled out by Sokal in his later book, has described the whole affair as a "tempest in a tea cup ." MathematicianGabriel Stolzenberg , however, has written a number of essays with the stated purpose of debunking the claims made by Sokal and his allies [ [http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr "Debunk: Expose as a Sham or False" ] ] . He argues that Sokal and company do not possess a sufficient understanding of the philosophical positions that they criticize and that this lack of understanding renders their criticisms meaningless. Bricmont and Sokal replied to Stolzenberg in the journal "Social Studies of Science" [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/reply_to_stolzenberg_v2.pdf] , pointing out what they claimed were "tendentious misrepresentations" of their work and critiquing Stolzenberg's commentary on thestrong program . Stolzenberg replied in the same issue, arguing that both the critique and the allegations of misrepresentation were based on misreadings. He advised readers to examine the arguments on each side slowly and skeptically, bearing in mind the dictum that the obvious is sometimes the enemy of the true. [http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/reply_to_bs.pdf]The controversy also had implications for
peer review , at least as far as "Social Text" was concerned. At the time of Sokal's hoax, "Social Text" was not a peer-reviewed journal; its editors believed that a more open editorial policy would promote more original, less conventional research.Fact|date=August 2008 "Social Text"'s editors argue that, in this context, Sokal's work was a deliberate fraud and betrayal of that trust. They further note that scientific peer review does not necessarily detect fraud either, in light of the later Schön scandal, Bogdanov Affair , and other instances of poor science achieving publication.In 2006
social scientist Harry Collin reported a quantitative experiment examining whether he could pass as a physicist. [Cite journal
author = Harry Collins et al.
title = Experiments with interactional expertise
journal =Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A
volume = 37
issue = 4
month = December
year = 2006
pages = 656–674
doi = 10.1016/j.shpsa.2006.09.005 See also
* Cite journal
author =Jim Giles
title = Sociologist fools physics judges
journal = Nature
volume = 442
pages = 8
month = July
year = 2006
doi = 10.1038/442008a] Based on short question/answers not all physicists were able to distinguish the social scientist's writings from real physicists.imilar affairs
*
SCIgen program:In an event which has been compared to the Sokal affair, a paper randomly generated by theSCIgen program was accepted as a non-peer-reviewed paper for presentation at the 2005 World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI ). The conference announced the prank article's non-reviewed acceptance even though none of the article's three assigned reviewers had submitted a response. The three MIT graduate students responsible for the hoax said they were unaware of the Sokal affair until after they had submitted the article.
*Purgathofer:A prior event which may also be compared to the Sokal affair involved the VIDEA 1995 conference, organized by theWessex Institute of Technology . ProfessorWerner Purgathofer (Vienna University of Technology ), a member of the VIDEA 1995 program committee, became suspicious of the conference's peer review standards after not receiving any abstracts or papers for review. To confirm his suspicions, he wrote four absurd and/or nonsensical "abstracts" and submitted them to the conference. All were "reviewed and conditionally accepted." [http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~wp/videa-paper.html] He subsequently resigned from the program committee.
*Bogdanov Affair — an event intheoretical physics once called a reverse-Sokal controversy
*Rosenhan experiment - involving the admission of healthy 'pseudopatients' to 12 psychiatric hospitals
*The Report From Iron Mountain — a hoax report purportedly leaked from a government think tank
*Project Alpha — hoax byJames Randi on a psychic foundation
*Atlanta Nights — a similar hoax by a group of pro authors on a vanity press
*Ern Malley — a similar hoax involving modernist poetry
*Disumbrationism — a similar hoax involving modern art
* - another hoax involving modernist poetry
*Nat Tate — hoax on the art world by William Boyd in 1998.
* Australian satirical comedy groupThe Chaser entered multiple exhibitions of modern art in 2007, placing garbage (old tyres, black bin bags etc) on the floor, and labelling them with a plaque describing the "piece". Some were thrown out, while others were admired by patrons and curators alike.ee also
*
False document andfictitious entry
*Journal club — a forum for peer review "after the ink is dry"
*Obscurantism
*Politics and the English Language — George Orwell's 1946 essay criticizing the use of bloated and verbose language in contemporary English writing
*Science wars — an entry with more information about the Sokal hoax
*Continuity thesis
* "Fashionable Nonsense " - Sokal and Bricmont's book explaining the hoax
* "Journal of Irreproducible Results "References
* Sokal, Alan D. and Bricmont, Jean. "Impostures Intellectuelles". Editions Odile Jacob, 1997.
* Sokal, Alan D. and Bricmont, Jean. "". Picador USA: New York, 1998. ISBN 0-312-19545-1
* Gross, Paul R. and Levitt, Norman. "". Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-8018-4766-4
* Editors of Lingua Franca. "The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy". University of Nebraska Press, 2000. ISBN 0-8032-7995-7
* Callon, Michel 1999 "Whose Impostures? Physicists at War with the Third Person", "Social Studies of Science" 29(2): 261-86.External links
* [http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html How to Deconstruct Almost Anything] — early hoax from 1991 at the International Conference on Cyberspace.
* [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html Alan Sokal Articles on the Social Text Affair] Alan Sokal's own page with very extensive links; includes the original article
* [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html Original hoax article (HTML)]
* [http://jwalsh.net/projects/sokal/ Sokal Affair quotes]
* [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/reply.html Sokal's response to the editors]
* [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html A discussion by Richard Dawkins of nonsense in post-modernist literature]
* [http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo the new site for Andrew Bulkan's Postmodernism Generator mentioned in Richard Dawkins' article above]
* [http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/ Gabriel Stolzenberg's collected essays on this and related topics]
* [http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/sokalhoax.html The Sokal Hoax: At Whom Are We Laughing?]
* [http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~wp/videa-paper.html WARNING: Beware of VIDEA] Fake abstracts accepted by the VIDEA 1995 conference
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.