aXioo::Sokal's Hoax

Featuring Clifford Goldstein. The first of 10 in a series. You can find the rest at http://www.youtube.com/myaxioo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/lic enses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• knowledge
• truth
• philosophy
• Clifford
• Goldstein
• realist
• absolutist
• skeptic
• relativist
• social
• construct
• science
• quantum

[davobrosia]

Social Text made clear that it didn't have a peer review process. There was no gamble.

[TripleEvent]

I'm sorry, but this guy's voice is just... EEK!!

[myrddinistheshit]

that plane metaphor is such a bullshit followed by the killer argument of holocaust.

[SonytoBratsoni]

@Adamalgorithm I appreciate your openness towards new opinions .

[Adamalgorithm]

@SonytoBratsoni I see your point.

[SonytoBratsoni]

@Adamalgorithm Whence the shame ? Scientific American is an interesting and credible popular journal , but not peer reviewed . Of course , it (social text) didn't qualify as a genuine scientific endeavor , nor did it ever strive to be . It's goal was to provide commentary on culture and technology .

Sokal did expose a weakness ( not one of great concern I'd say) ,but that does not discredit every single article they have . Go to socialtextjournal(dot)org and evaluate whether it contains bs .

[Adamalgorithm]

@SonytoBratsoni Shame on the journal for not having peer review. It is not a genuine scientific endeavor without peer review. Sokal exposed the stupidity and nonsense published in such a journal. The journal publishes nonsense not fit for printing on toilet paper.

[SonytoBratsoni]

@CrateofStolenDirt (con) In fact , one might be thunderstruck to find the concept and foundation exemplified in page 416 of Bruce fink's complete translation of Ecrits . The word Tree appears and it is separated by a horizontal line from the image of a tree , signifying domination .

[SonytoBratsoni]

@CrateofStolenDirt I was pleasantly surprised by your receptiveness .Youtube has provided us with a poor conversation format but I'll try within it to expound this misreading . In "fashionable nonsense" a claim is made concerning a certain a line ,that horizontally separates S(signifier) and S(signified), in that it was chosen in an arbitrary fashion.However , it's usage can be found in "Course in General Linguistics" ( wikipedia has a succinct description) . (cont)

[CrateofStolenDirt]

@SonytoBratsoni This is a little better but still insuffuciently specific to count as an argument. Expatiate, and this conversation might be worth continuing.

Oh, and I'm not trying to score a cheap point but I think you meant "proceed".

[SonytoBratsoni]

Therein I was summarizing my personal experience .Since you demonstrate the awareness of making assertions and ask me to exemplify why some scholarly work would save Sokal some embarrassment , I will precede with one example .In "fashionable nonsense" he claims that Lacan draws arbitrarily mathematical formulas to make him self appear smarter. In The Cam.Com. to Lacan , Dany Nobus explains the supposed "arbitrariness" of symbols by pointing out their origin in Saussurian linguistics.