97
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: +
→Sokal
Sokal did not expose post-modern approaches to science as 'flawed', what he exposed was perhaps the incompetence of a small group of people working for the journal in question. Whilst Sokal was a critic of postmodernism in general, his paper did not expose any fundamental flaw. It should be noted that the journal in question was not actually peer reviewed at the time, so in actual fact even looking at how one might criticise the editors involved, what the publication of the paper actually proved is at best questionable. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:19, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Sokal did not expose post-modern approaches to science as 'flawed', what he exposed was perhaps the incompetence of a small group of people working for the journal in question. Whilst Sokal was a critic of postmodernism in general, his paper did not expose any fundamental flaw. It should be noted that the journal in question was not actually peer reviewed at the time, so in actual fact even looking at how one might criticise the editors involved, what the publication of the paper actually proved is at best questionable. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:19, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::most people though Sokal scored a coup. It shwed the leading journal in the field was incompetent. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::most people though Sokal scored a coup. It shwed the leading journal in the field was incompetent. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)
:::Even though Sokal might have, ahem, "shwed" something about the editors of one particular journal in one particular instance, is that really enough to bolster an argument that an entire literary, intellectual and cultural movement has been, as the section heading reads, "discredited?" [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 20:00, 3 November 2009 (EST)