Podcasts about sokal hoax

Adam Forrest Kay is the author of Escape From Shadow Physics, a rip-roaring tour through the history of physics that suggests the quantum world might be a lot less legible than anyone realizes. Much of his work is informed by the logic of Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogs, which are classical systems whose behavior can be described by same mathematics that's used for quantum mechanics. Kay makes the case that if a classical system, made of materials and substances, can be described by the same statistical mathematics, that it's possible the quantum intuition that reality dissolves into a sea of probabilities and wave functions is just straight up wrong. We explore how the mechanics of droplets bouncing on surfaces recapitulates the mathematics of quantum mechanics, what it means for a classical system to behave like a quantum one, how pilot wave theory fits into the story, and why this isn't front page news for every science magazine in the world. MAKE HISTORY WITH US THIS SUMMER:https://demystifysci.com/demysticon-2025PATREON https://www.patreon.com/c/demystifysciPARADIGM DRIFThttps://demystifysci.com/paradigm-drift-show(00:00) Go!(00:06:20) Adam Kay's Journey(00:10:17) The Complexity of Innovation (00:12:26) Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogies(00:20:20) Philosophy and Positivism in Physics(00:23:21) Skepticism in Physics (00:24:35) Transition in Scientific Thought(00:26:10) Positivism and Knowledge(00:28:40) Auguste Comte's Positivism and its Paradoxes(00:34:50) Historical Context from Philosophy to Physics(00:41:10) The Clash in Intellectual Circles(00:46:00) Continued Influence of Early Physicists(00:47:02) Historical Scientific Perspectives(00:49:07) The Philosophy of Science and Positivism(00:51:50) Einstein's Influence on Physical Theories(00:56:05) Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics(01:00:02) Parallels Between Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics(01:07:00) Reevaluating Physical Paradigms(01:12:07) Evolution of Physical Theories(01:14:09) Modern Reflections and Quantum Theory(01:18:07) Book Review and Chapter Structure(01:19:04) Introduction to Pilot Wave Theory(01:25:35) Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogies(01:35:08) Interpretation of Positive Atomism(01:36:46) Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics(01:39:28) Sound, Sampling, and Uncertainty in Physics(01:44:41) The Role of Fourier Analysis in Various Domains(01:49:10) Quantum Mechanics and Reality's Mystical Interpretation(01:54:09) Physics and Its Intellectual Dominance(01:58:55) Intersection of Physics and Metaphysics(02:01:10) Mysticism in Physics(02:05:27) The Sokal Hoax and Scientific Discourse(02:09:10) Importance of Diverse Viewpoints(02:14:23) Writing and Future Endeavors#quantummechanics, #philosophyofscience, #einstein, #bohr, #quantumphysics, #pilotwave, #positivism, #quantumreality, #scienceandphilosophy, #sciencehistory, #waveparticleduality, #quantumtheory, #physicscommunity #philosophypodcast, #sciencepodcast, #longformpodcast ABOUS US: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities. SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/- Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySciMUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

Paul Boghossian is Silver Professor of Philosophy at New York University, where he is also Chair of the Philosophy Department. Paul has worked in a wide variety of areas within philosophy, including epistemology and the philosophy of language, mind, and logic respectively. Robinson and Paul discuss the sociological relationship between physics and philosophy, the Sokal Hoax, philosophy in public life, the role of the a priori and a posteriori distinction in metaphysics, logic, and epistemology, and the nature of moral facts. For more detail on the latter, check out Paul's book with Timothy Williamson, Debating The A Priori (Oxford, 2020). Debating The A Priori: https://a.co/d/diNADPx OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:32 Introduction 04:33 Physics and Philosophy 17:12 The Sokal Hoax 26:52 Distinguishing the A Priori and A Posteriori 31:59 Does The A Priori/A Posteriori Distinction Hold Water? 48:07 Clarifying the Distinction 53:51 Debating the A Priori with Timothy Williamson 01:03:11 Are There Moral Facts? Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

Steve Hsu is a Professor of Theoretical Physics and Professor of Computational Mathematics, Science, and Engineering at Michigan State University. He returns to the CSPI Podcast for a wide-ranging discussion of various personal, political, and technical topics, including his attempted cancelation from Michigan State, thoughts on Russia-Ukraine, affirmative action, macroeconomics, and why top physics talents prefer theoretical over practical pursuits (If you haven't seen Steve's first appearance on the podcast, click here to watch or listen).  The conversation begins with Steve explaining what it was like growing up one of the few Asian kids in a predominantly white town and reflecting on the nature of assimilation. He and Richard continue their discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war and European geopolitics before moving on to affirmative action and civil rights law. They talk about the Harvard Asian case, the highly subjective nature of legal decisions, and whether employment markets are rational enough for the college degree to lose value if universities scrap standardized tests. Next, Steve tells Richard about his attempted cancelation from Michigan State, where he was pressured to step down from his role as Vice President of Research after a leftist student group attacked him on Twitter over his blog posts and podcasts. They talk about the intrusion of activists into academia, and how this has negatively impacted the STEM fields and social sciences. This leads to a discussion of whether economics is a more valuable and rigorous social science than the others, and whether micro and macroeconomics are comparable or reconcilable. In the last part of the podcast, Steve and Richard talk about what traits and dispositions lead some people to go against the crowd and resist conformity, and why the path to scientific and technological innovation is laden with disbelief and ridicule from peers. Using the examples of Jeff Bezos and Richard Feynman, Steve explains how those with exceptionally high IQs are often able to effortlessly solve problems and optimize systems with little to no background or technical knowledge. They conclude by considering the possibility that policy should be oriented towards recognizing and rewarding the few geniuses and innovators whose work leads to disproportionate social and material gains. A transcript of the full conversation is available here:  https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/assimilation-football-affirmative?s=r    Sign up for CSPI's Substack newsletter: https://cspi.substack.com. Follow CSPI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CSPICenterOrg. Subscribe to our YouTube for video podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvs4ugq0xSvbvwArpFJG6gA. Learn more about CSPI: https://cspicenter.org. CSPI Podcast, “The Future of Humanity is IVF Babies and Chinese Domination | Steve Hsu & Richard Hanania.” Richard Hanania, “Lessons from Forecasting the Ukraine War.”  Adam Tooze, “Putin's Challenge to Western Hegemony.” Rob Lee. “Moscow's Compellence Strategy.” Anatoly Karlin. “Regathering of the Russian Lands.”  Steve Hsu, “Joe Cesario on Police Decision Making and Racial Bias in Deadly Force Decisions (Manifold Episode #11).” Steve Hsu, “ManifoldOne Podcast Episode#3: Richard Hanania on Wokeness, Public Choice Theory, & Geostrategy.” Steve Hsu, "Manifold Podcast #6: Richard Sander on Affirmative Action, Mismatch Theory, and Academic Freedom.”  Alan Sokal, “Sokal Hoax.” Wikipedia, “Grievance Studies Affair (Sokal Squared).” Eric Kaufmann, “Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship.” Steve Hsu, “Bezos Quotes.” 

Adoré Floupette, Ernest Lalor Malley, Sokal Hoax and Grievance Studies Affair aka Sokal Squared are all, at heart, satirical works with a sharp aim at foolish literary and academic circles. But a 1976 sublime satirical work about salt passing is the

Yes, we're back with Jimmy Concepts, reliable source of dishonest idiocy.  This time, as a kind of 'bonus feature' to our last episode, Daniel reads out a representative selection of reviewer comments on some of the fake papers submitted to academic journals by Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian during the so-called 'Sokal Squared' prank.  It's very revealing... albeit of something we already knew: namely that Lindsay and his cohorts are absolutely full of shit. Content Warnings. Podcast Notes: Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month. Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618 IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1   Show Notes for 95: Areo Magazine, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship ( https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ ) Full listing of Grievance Studies Papers and Reviews ( https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 ). "BJ-Gay" reviewer's comment: - This paper claims to apply a combination of psychoanalysis and feminism to examine and critique styles of masculinity evident within grappling-based martial arts subcultures. Overall, I found the paper very difficult to read and cannot recommend it for publication. This is due to a combination of factors, namely: - A densely theoretical, often confusing style of prose in many parts of the paper; - An inconsistent application of theoretical concepts, most of which were not defined with any clarity for the reader; - Overuse of certain source material, as well as a fairly consistent tendency to misuse sources in support of claims that the papers/books in question do not actually support; - Many sweeping generalizations about (all) men involved in (all) grappling-based martial arts; - A tokenistic inclusion of discussions of women in these spaces, which was not reconciled with the analysis in any meaningful way; - A central thesis which is not, to my knowledge, supported by any of the empirical research in this area (despite the fact that several such studies were cited in the paper); - Bizarre, even farcical concluding recommendations which indicate a lack of knowledge about the martial arts in question, as well as a tenuous and selective grasp of feminism as applied to sport. - There is simply too much wrong with the paper to offer a more robust criticism as a reviewer. I recommend that the author spends far more time acquainting themselves with both the theoretical and empirical literature at the intersection of sport, martial arts and masculinity studies before attempting a re-write. The current offering sits far short of the standards of scholarship expected of academic publication, particularly in a journal such as Men and Masculinities. https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1444709707864674306 https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1402338497617285120 "The Joke's On You" reviewer comment: - Another sign of lack of integration is that there is not clear definition of the comedic. The very first paragraph offers one too narrow for the essay. Northrup Frye provides some useful definitions of irony, parody, and satire in his classic work, Anatomy of Criticism. Note, too, that Cynthia Willett, in Irony in the Age of Empire, shares a similar thesis with this essay, namely that irony works against arrogance and ignorance. That source should be acknowledged even as the author discusses her own different approach, and might help the author clarify definitions of the comedic and integrate argument. - Yet another sign of lack of integration are the mixed references from Oliver to Dotson, Bailey, et al.-- Oliver would support a strong postmodern or poststructuralist stance that would render claims to speak "truth" to power finally ironic or that would yield to a very serious act of witnessing alterity. The latter group of epistemologists (including Dotson and Bailey) seem to affirm a pluralism but also a truth that allows for objective claims. Humor that makes use of the latter approach would typically tend toward satire, not irony. Satire and irony just do not function the same way, and the author would want to decide which direction or use of them would most assist the argument. "Fat Body Builders" reviewer comment: - For instance, statements like these, “In order for fat to be seen as ordinary and familiar, we need to insert ourselves in the extraordinary and unfamiliar. Competitive bodybuilding venues may be unfamiliar, even intrinsically fat-exclusionary, but this can change” and “Though it goes beyond the scope of this paper to provide more specific methods for institutionalizing fat bodybuilding” illustrate the issue with the paper. The author has highlighted the negative implication of fat stigma, but with a lack of connection to implementation, it negates the reason for why fat bodybuilding is a solution over other means or methods. - This reader would encourage the author to improve the connection between fat bodybuilding and its role as a means of fat activism. The author certainly has a wealth of information about the field of bodybuilding and the author should use that experience to strengthen the connections mentioned previously. "Hooters" reviewer comment: - This then takes me to a core challenge in moving forward with your paper at Sex Roles: trustworthiness. All three reviewers share my concern about the lack of demonstrated methodological integrity in the present paper. This is where Reviewer 3 comes in. I recruited Reviewer 3 after the other reviewers, and because she is a member of our in-house staff, I shared both reviewers' (masked) comments with her. I asked her first if she felt there was enough evidence of rigor to pursue a revision. Because we (at this point) have incomplete methodological information, I cannot commit to making a positive judgment here, but I am committing to giving it a try. - Thus my second challenge to Reviewer 3 was to outline what next steps you will need to take (in addition to addressing the other reviewers' comments) to fill in these methodological gaps. As you can see from Reviewer 3's comments, this starts by laying out your procedural details and analytic strategy. My guess is that you will need to focus more specifically on theme development and justification (e.g., thematic analysis) rather than taking this aspect from grounded theory (in that your goal is not to develop theory). I have attached a recently published paper in Sex Roles by Sheryl Chatfield that lays out various approaches to qualitative methodologies and outlines our standards here at Sex Roles. My expectation is that Reviewer 3's comments and this paper will help you address this critical point, as well as to move one from there to fully flesh out your methods, analyses, and findings. "Dildos" reviewer comment: - In the opening sections, the author notes that "though Allan lays out psychoanalytic theoretical considerations that are strongly suggestive of the co-constitutive relationship between masculinity, thevariables listed above, and anality, currently there is no scholarly literature that engages the topic of straight male penetrative sex toy directly and substantively" (3). The author here is referring to Allan's article, "Phallic Affect," however, Allan's book, Reading from Behind: A Cultural Analysis of the Anus (2016) might prove to be more useful in the context of this study. - The author writes that "there exists a far more extensive and applicable treatment in the book, The Ultimate Guide to Prostate Pleasure, but unfortunately this insightful volumes falls considerably outside of the scholarly academic canon" (3). I'm not certain that this is a problem, perhaps this is a difference of approach, but it seems to me that sex manuals are highly valuable resources in scholarly work and if there is a problem that the problem rests not with The Ultimate Guide but the Academy's inability to imagine value outside of itself. Indeed, the author might consider expanding this to include books like, The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Strap-On Sex by Violet Blue. Sci-Hub link: https://sci-hub.se/10.1353/tech.2007.0066 'So You Wanna Be a Hooters Girl' at The Smoking Gun: https://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-you-wanna-be-hooters-girl   Show Notes from 94 Again: https://idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com/94-james-lindsay-and-the-grievance-studies-hoax James Lindsay, New Discourses, "Why You Can Be Transgender But Not Transracial."" https://newdiscourses.com/2021/06/why-you-can-be-transgender-but-not-transracial/ James Lindsay has a day job, apparently. "Maryville man walks path of healing and combat." https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html Areo Magazine, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship. https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ Full listing of Grievance Studies Papers and Reviews. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 'Mein Kampf' and the 'Feminazis': What Three Academics' Hitler Hoax Really Reveals About 'Wokeness'. https://web.archive.org/web/20210328112901/https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-hitler-hoax-academic-wokeness-culture-war-1.9629759 "First and foremost, the source material. The chapter the hoaxers chose, not by coincidence, one of the least ideological and racist parts of Hitler's book. Chapter 12, probably written in April/May 1925, deals with how the newly refounded NSDAP should rebuild as a party and amplify its program. "According to their own account, the writers took parts of the chapter and inserted feminist "buzzwords"; they "significantly changed" the "original wording and intent” of the text to make the paper "publishable and about feminism." An observant reader might ask: what could possibly remain of any Nazi content after that? But no one in the media, apparently, did." New Discourses, "There Is No Good Part of Hitler's Mein Kampf" https://newdiscourses.com/2021/03/there-is-no-good-part-of-hitlers-mein-kampf/ On this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay, who helped to write the paper and perpetrate the Grievance Studies Affair, talks about the project and the creation of this particular paper at unprecedented length and in unprecedented detail, revealing Nilssen not to know what he's talking about. If you have ever wondered about what the backstory of the creation of the “Feminist Mein Kampf” paper really was, including why its authors did it, you won't want to miss this long-form discussion and rare response to yet another underinformed critic of Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose's work. The Grieveance Studies Affair Revealed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k Reviewer 1 Comments on Dog Park Paper "page 9 - the human subjects are afforded anonymity and not asked about income, etc for ethical reasons. yet, the author as researcher intruded into the dogs' spaces to examine and record genitalia. I realize this was necessary to the project, but could the author acknowledge/explain/justify this (arguably, anthropocentric) difference? Indicating that it was necessary to the research would suffice but at least the difference should be acknowledged." Nestor de Buen, Anti-Science Humping in the Dog Park. https://conceptualdisinformation.substack.com/p/anti-science-humping-in-the-dog-park "What is even more striking is that if the research had actually been conducted and the results showed what the paper says they show, there is absolutely no reason why it should not have been published. And moreover, what it proves is the opposite of what its intention is. It shows that one can make scientifically testable claims based on the conceptual framework of gender studies, and that the field has all the markings of a perfectly functional research programme." "Yes, the dog park paper is based on false data and, like Sokal's, contains a lot of unnecessary jargon, but it is not nonsense, and the distinction is far from trivial. Nonsense implies one cannot even obtain a truth value from a proposition. In fact, the paper being false, if anything, proves that it is not nonsense, yet the grievance hoaxers try to pass falsity as nonsense. Nonsense is something like Chomsky's famous sentence “colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” It is nonsense because it is impossible to decide how one might evaluate whether it is true. A false sentence would be “the moon is cubical.” It has a definite meaning, it just happens not to be true.  "So, if the original Sokal Hoax is like Chomsky's sentence, the dog park paper is much more like “the moon is cubical.” And in fact, a more accurate analogy would be “the moon is cubical and here is a picture that proves it,” and an attached doctored picture of the cubical moon." Reviewer 2 Comments on the Dog-Park Paper "I am a bit curious about your methodology. Can you say more? You describe your methods here (procedures for collecting data), but not really your overall approach to methodology. Did you just show up, observe, write copious notes, talk to people when necessary, and then leave? If so, it might be helpful to explicitly state this. It sounds to me like you did a kind of ethnography (methodology — maybe multispecies ethnography?) but that's not entirely clear here. Or are you drawing on qualitative methods in social behaviorism/symbolic interactionism? In either case, the methodology chosen should be a bit more clearly articulated." Counterweight. https://counterweightsupport.com/ "Welcome to Counterweight, the home of scholarship and advice on [Critical Social Justice](https://counterweightsupport.com/2021/02/17/what-do-we-mean-by-critical-social-justice/) ideology. We are here to connect you with the resources, advice and guidance you need to address CSJ beliefs as you encounter them in your day-to-day life. The Counterweight community is a non-partisan, grassroots movement advocating for liberal concepts of social justice including individualism, universalism, viewpoint diversity and the free exchange of ideas. [Subscribe](https://counterweightsupport.com/subscribe-to-counterweight/) today to become part of the Counterweight movement."" Inside Higher Ed, "Blowback Against a Hoax." https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/08/author-recent-academic-hoax-faces-disciplinary-action-portland-state Peter Boghossian Resignation Latter from PSU. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/my-university-sacrificed-ideas-for

So, in rank defiance of our recent promise to 'get back to the nazis' instead we continue our James Lindsay coverage.  (What... me? Irony? How dare you?)  This time, Daniel patiently walks a distracted, slightly hyperactive, and increasingly incredulous Jack through the infamous 'Grievance Studies Hoax' (AKA 'Sokal Squared') in which Lindsay and colleagues Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian tried (and then claimed) to prove something or other about modern Humanities academia by submitting a load of stupid fake papers to various feminist and fat studies journals.  As Daniel reveals, the episode was an orgy of dishonesty and tactical point-missing that actually proved the opposite of what the team of snickering tricksters thought they were proving.  Sadly, however, because we live in Hell, the trio have only raised their profiles as a result.  A particular highlight of the episode is Lindsay revealing his staggering ignorance when 'responding' to criticism. Content warnings, as ever. Podcast Notes: Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month. Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618 IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1   Show Notes: James Lindsay, New Discourses, "Why You Can Be Transgender But Not Transracial."" https://newdiscourses.com/2021/06/why-you-can-be-transgender-but-not-transracial/ James Lindsay has a day job, apparently. "Maryville man walks path of healing and combat." https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html Areo Magazine, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship. https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ Full listing of Grievance Studies Papers and Reviews. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 'Mein Kampf' and the 'Feminazis': What Three Academics' Hitler Hoax Really Reveals About 'Wokeness'. https://web.archive.org/web/20210328112901/https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-hitler-hoax-academic-wokeness-culture-war-1.9629759 "First and foremost, the source material. The chapter the hoaxers chose, not by coincidence, one of the least ideological and racist parts of Hitler's book. Chapter 12, probably written in April/May 1925, deals with how the newly refounded NSDAP should rebuild as a party and amplify its program. "According to their own account, the writers took parts of the chapter and inserted feminist "buzzwords"; they "significantly changed" the "original wording and intent” of the text to make the paper "publishable and about feminism." An observant reader might ask: what could possibly remain of any Nazi content after that? But no one in the media, apparently, did." New Discourses, "There Is No Good Part of Hitler's Mein Kampf" https://newdiscourses.com/2021/03/there-is-no-good-part-of-hitlers-mein-kampf/ On this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay, who helped to write the paper and perpetrate the Grievance Studies Affair, talks about the project and the creation of this particular paper at unprecedented length and in unprecedented detail, revealing Nilssen not to know what he's talking about. If you have ever wondered about what the backstory of the creation of the “Feminist Mein Kampf” paper really was, including why its authors did it, you won't want to miss this long-form discussion and rare response to yet another underinformed critic of Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose's work. The Grieveance Studies Affair Revealed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k Reviewer 1 Comments on Dog Park Paper "page 9 - the human subjects are afforded anonymity and not asked about income, etc for ethical reasons. yet, the author as researcher intruded into the dogs' spaces to examine and record genitalia. I realize this was necessary to the project, but could the author acknowledge/explain/justify this (arguably, anthropocentric) difference? Indicating that it was necessary to the research would suffice but at least the difference should be acknowledged." Nestor de Buen, Anti-Science Humping in the Dog Park. https://conceptualdisinformation.substack.com/p/anti-science-humping-in-the-dog-park "What is even more striking is that if the research had actually been conducted and the results showed what the paper says they show, there is absolutely no reason why it should not have been published. And moreover, what it proves is the opposite of what its intention is. It shows that one can make scientifically testable claims based on the conceptual framework of gender studies, and that the field has all the markings of a perfectly functional research programme." "Yes, the dog park paper is based on false data and, like Sokal's, contains a lot of unnecessary jargon, but it is not nonsense, and the distinction is far from trivial. Nonsense implies one cannot even obtain a truth value from a proposition. In fact, the paper being false, if anything, proves that it is not nonsense, yet the grievance hoaxers try to pass falsity as nonsense. Nonsense is something like Chomsky's famous sentence “colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” It is nonsense because it is impossible to decide how one might evaluate whether it is true. A false sentence would be “the moon is cubical.” It has a definite meaning, it just happens not to be true.  "So, if the original Sokal Hoax is like Chomsky's sentence, the dog park paper is much more like “the moon is cubical.” And in fact, a more accurate analogy would be “the moon is cubical and here is a picture that proves it,” and an attached doctored picture of the cubical moon." Reviewer 2 Comments on the Dog-Park Paper "I am a bit curious about your methodology. Can you say more? You describe your methods here (procedures for collecting data), but not really your overall approach to methodology. Did you just show up, observe, write copious notes, talk to people when necessary, and then leave? If so, it might be helpful to explicitly state this. It sounds to me like you did a kind of ethnography (methodology — maybe multispecies ethnography?) but that's not entirely clear here. Or are you drawing on qualitative methods in social behaviorism/symbolic interactionism? In either case, the methodology chosen should be a bit more clearly articulated." Counterweight. https://counterweightsupport.com/ "Welcome to Counterweight, the home of scholarship and advice on [Critical Social Justice](https://counterweightsupport.com/2021/02/17/what-do-we-mean-by-critical-social-justice/) ideology. We are here to connect you with the resources, advice and guidance you need to address CSJ beliefs as you encounter them in your day-to-day life. The Counterweight community is a non-partisan, grassroots movement advocating for liberal concepts of social justice including individualism, universalism, viewpoint diversity and the free exchange of ideas. [Subscribe](https://counterweightsupport.com/subscribe-to-counterweight/) today to become part of the Counterweight movement."" Inside Higher Ed, "Blowback Against a Hoax." https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/08/author-recent-academic-hoax-faces-disciplinary-action-portland-state Peter Boghossian Resignation Latter from PSU. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/my-university-sacrificed-ideas-for  

The class focuses on epistemological themes such as the Kabala-influenced idea of Logopolis, ideas of knowledge as social construction, popular theory discourse before the Sokal Hoax and Shardovan as epistemological hero.

In hierdie episode kyk Dirk na bevoorregting en die Helen Zille twiet-debakel. Skakels onder:Sokal Hoax: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/Afriforum artikel: https://www.afriforum.co.za/dubbele-standaarde-en-swart-bevoorregting-die-nuwe-storie-van-suid-afrika/Teken in, deel en praat saam op Twitter!

In 1996, Dr. Alan Sokal, a physics professor, wanted to test the intellectual rigor of “postmodern cultural studies.” To do so, he wrote an article titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” This article was full of absolute nonsense—but Dr. Sokal believed it would be accepted by an academic journal anyway. And he was right. This hoax—called the “Sokal Affair” or “Sokal Hoax”—caused an uproar in academia because it questioned the validity of social science commentary on scientific inquiry. Fast forward to 2017. Three academics, editor Helen Pluckrose, mathematician James A. Lindsay, and philosopher Peter Boghossian, did something similar but bigger. And with a similar purpose—they wanted to test the intellectual rigor of academic journals in the fields of gender, queer, race, and fat studies—what they call as a whole, “grievance studies.” They wanted to see if they could produce absurd articles using the catch-phrases and biases they observed in cultural studies academic journals—and get them published. Of the 20 nonsense articles the trio wrote, 7 passed peer review and were published, and one even received recognition. Seven more were on the verge of publication before their hoax was uncovered. This academic project has been dubbed “Sokal Squared” as a nod to Dr. Alan Sokal’s hoax article from 1996. While it may sound like this topic is only of interest to academia, the authors believe it is relevant—in fact, crucial—for everyone to understand the implications of what is going on in universities and academic journals because the knowledge produced there affects us all. We spoke with all three of the “Sokal Squared” hoaxers, or “academic whistleblowers” as they would say, for today’s program. We should have the extended conversations with our guests posted by the evening of March 2, 2019.

Pete and Luke are talking about the new Sokal Hoax, academic authority, and the economic context. This new controversy was perpetrated by three scholars: James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian. They wrote 20 fake papers in the style of cultural studies but with invented data or ostensibly ridiculous claims, as one title states: “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct." They targeted gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. The hoaxers claim that because 7 of 20 papers were published in important academic journals—for the most part they were actually marginal publications—journals, it proves that the intellectual bankruptcy of academic identity studies. Greg Afinogenov, "Orthodoxxed" N+1. Henry Farrell, "Move over Sokal Hoax," Crooked Timber. Zach Beauchamp, "The controversy around hoax studies in critical theory, explained," Vox.com. Yasha Mounk, "The New Sokal Hoax," The Atlantic.   The Public Sphere is a podcast from Contrivers Review. Visit www.contrivers.org to read great essays and interviews. You can also sign up for our newsletter, follow us on Twitter, or like our Facebook page. If you have a suggestion for the podcast, or an essay or review you'd like to pitch, get in touch with us through social media or email. The Public Sphere is on iTunes where you can rate and review us. Please consider supporting The Public Sphere and Contrivers' Review on Patreon. Thanks for listening.

Ben Cholok comes by to talk to Pat about Alan Sokal and the Sokal Hoax.

A conversation about intellectual rigor and intellectual confusion with New York University physicist Alan Sokal, the man behind the "Sokal Hoax" and author of Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture. [download] [MOI home] [MOI archive]