The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

The Sokal Affair Options
Daemon
Posted: Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 29,661
Neurons: 88,161
Location: Inside Farlex computers
The Sokal Affair

In 1996, physics professor Alan Sokal submitted a parody article to the journal Social Text to see if the editors would publish it just because it "sounded good" and "flattered" their views. Though Sokal disregarded their requested edits, they still published his article. In a different journal, he revealed that his piece was a hoax meant to expose the unreliable nature of non-peer reviewed publications and the bias of "the academic Left." What was the subject of Sokal's article? More...
maillady
Posted: Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:55:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2012
Posts: 258
Neurons: 3,375
Ha!
Christine
Posted: Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:22:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 3,922
Neurons: 15,842
cool picture!
thar
Posted: Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:38:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 21,208
Neurons: 85,615
I think that was a bit mean!

1 - they weren't physicists, they tried to get him to change it, but in the end they trusted him.

2 - that is postmodernism - seeing past all the constraints and preconceptions that hold you back.

And it is not like peer review is perfect - that panders to the status quo, or the research areas that others are involved in or think worthy. How many interesting ideas have failed to achieve peer review publication because they did not fit the preconceptions of the reviewers?
dusty
Posted: Saturday, June 15, 2013 8:59:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,770
Neurons: 5,765
that is funny!

Especially since I can guarantee the published article was not what is considered a reputable scientific journal. All Universities that have graduate programs in a discipline of actual science, have a science library where they keep reputable journals they have subscriptions to. I guarantee a University the offers advanced physics degrees does not carry a subscription to that magazine.

Scientists take the academic journals very seriously, to the point that all they have to do when someone mentions some "new breakthrough" in a field is look to see where the results are published. And when it is not in one of their trusted journals (who would never, ever, not if God himself wrote the article, never would they publish anything unless all who study that field, agree upon)

It is because there is so much junk propaganda that gets picked up by the media, that they take "scientific proof" deathly seriously. People cannot be bothered to read hoaxes or other idiots sibling rivalry. Scientists don't write papers about one subject just to slight another team of researchers. That would writers, authors, and journalists.

The same way authors get black listed from the writing community for explaining poetry, a Scientist who wasted another scientist's time would never, be taken seriously again because real scientists cannot afford to play such childish games. We depend on each other's work and word to build upon the work of others. It is how true progress takes place because none of our single lifetimes could ever accomplish anything if we had to start from square one, two three, or even three hundred.

We depend on each other's word, which must be golden. Peer reviewed does not mean intellectual masturbation and pissing for distance in debates as it does in the literary and historical world. We fully disclose because we depend on each other to find our mistakes, we don't belittle, we are grateful if someone can find something flawed, because it brings us closer to the truth, which to scientists, has nothing to do with the point of someone's view, truth is not subjective.

So when junk magazines like sciencedaily, scientific American, and now even the once reputable journal "Nature" masquerade as scientific journals, they are nothing but tabloid media to the scientific community. They are sell outs used by politicians and other interest groups who have agenda other than deciphering truth.

Some people will never recognize The Truth of this world, and that is a sad thing. It is what is wrong with reference sites like wikipedia. I tried to let them know just in the discussion section of wikipedia why it is considered junk tabloid, my entry in the discussion was deleted and I was told to keep my crazy opinions to myself, that wikipedia was based on fact and not a forum.

It was then I realized that they really do not understand "Science"

don't get me wrong, I love NPR, but very very few people understand what truth and being able trust another's word means amongst scientists.

It is exactly why most scientists can easily tell when an article is written by a author with such and such advanced degree is fake and complete BS. How can they have an advanced degree when the words they use stand out a red flags planted with every other word that indirectly says they didn't take basic core classes in the discipline the supposedly have advanced degrees in.

One can usually tell with the first paragraph, if they even read it after glancing at the bibliography. Scientists only use reputable sources, anyway, it is hard to explain the process to anyone who doesn't understand the importance of honesty



Christine
Posted: Sunday, June 16, 2013 7:56:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 3,922
Neurons: 15,842
dusty wrote:
that is funny!

Especially since I can guarantee the published article was not what is considered a reputable scientific journal. All Universities that have graduate programs in a discipline of actual science, have a science library where they keep reputable journals they have subscriptions to. I guarantee a University the offers advanced physics degrees does not carry a subscription to that magazine.

Scientists take the academic journals very seriously, to the point that all they have to do when someone mentions some "new breakthrough" in a field is look to see where the results are published. And when it is not in one of their trusted journals (who would never, ever, not if God himself wrote the article, never would they publish anything unless all who study that field, agree upon)

It is because there is so much junk propaganda that gets picked up by the media, that they take "scientific proof" deathly seriously. People cannot be bothered to read hoaxes or other idiots sibling rivalry. Scientists don't write papers about one subject just to slight another team of researchers. That would writers, authors, and journalists.

The same way authors get black listed from the writing community for explaining poetry, a Scientist who wasted another scientist's time would never, be taken seriously again because real scientists cannot afford to play such childish games. We depend on each other's work and word to build upon the work of others. It is how true progress takes place because none of our single lifetimes could ever accomplish anything if we had to start from square one, two three, or even three hundred.

We depend on each other's word, which must be golden. Peer reviewed does not mean intellectual masturbation and pissing for distance in debates as it does in the literary and historical world. We fully disclose because we depend on each other to find our mistakes, we don't belittle, we are grateful if someone can find something flawed, because it brings us closer to the truth, which to scientists, has nothing to do with the point of someone's view, truth is not subjective.

So when junk magazines like sciencedaily, scientific American, and now even the once reputable journal "Nature" masquerade as scientific journals, they are nothing but tabloid media to the scientific community. They are sell outs used by politicians and other interest groups who have agenda other than deciphering truth.

Some people will never recognize The Truth of this world, and that is a sad thing. It is what is wrong with reference sites like wikipedia. I tried to let them know just in the discussion section of wikipedia why it is considered junk tabloid, my entry in the discussion was deleted and I was told to keep my crazy opinions to myself, that wikipedia was based on fact and not a forum.

It was then I realized that they really do not understand "Science"

don't get me wrong, I love NPR, but very very few people understand what truth and being able trust another's word means amongst scientists.

It is exactly why most scientists can easily tell when an article is written by a author with such and such advanced degree is fake and complete BS. How can they have an advanced degree when the words they use stand out a red flags planted with every other word that indirectly says they didn't take basic core classes in the discipline the supposedly have advanced degrees in.

One can usually tell with the first paragraph, if they even read it after glancing at the bibliography. Scientists only use reputable sources, anyway, it is hard to explain the process to anyone who doesn't understand the importance of honesty





like UFO, bigfoot, etc.
dusty
Posted: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:39:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,770
Neurons: 5,765
It's not to say that I don't appreciate writing, or see the beauty in poetry. I fully understand how useless even a stern language like German would be if it were incapable of communicating a thought of laughter, humor, intelling of a joke.

I should not have been so condescending of the two sets of bachelors, the first being arts and letters and the second of science. But are necessary degrees to keep this world from remaining a hell to everyone at all times.

The Arts & Sciences are different, but they are of the same realm, serving the same purpose, as they compliment to become whole.

There is no fuller life, no relationship so intimate as with those who allow you to be yourself unrestrained, free to let every emotion run it's course so that it can either be nurtured in the garden so that it can grow or just run completely through you so that it can be shaken off into the gutter to be drained away rather then remaining to form a pit in your stomach, which can happen with the smallest negative emotion that is not dealt with. It can form a pit if left alone long enough and can have such a gravity it's known as a black hole. Whereas Love, so long as it understands itself and never forgets what love is, never grows into a monster of destruction the way negativity does when it's never dealt with.

The Southern California Affair may allow for the polar halves of Whole to remain in an intimate relationship with true intimacy that has depth, but these intimate moments are the cause of harm to those who would read it, and believe it. Everything that is wrong is this world is due in large to confusion among the key individuals, confusion as opposed to understanding, but confusion is NOT the polar halve of understanding, as their is a world of difference between not knowing because you haven't learned and being confused because you think you know but don't realize you are mistaken, although often times denial is the reason mistakes are not realized.

So when something happens that is necessary to keep science in a healthy relationship with arts, when the frustration must be worked through by the arts in papers these this article's story, intimate interactions do not need to be distributed for public consumption, and when they are, less damage to society's understanding is done when it is categorized as sarcasm, or a play just for fun.

I understand the back and forth jabs or ribbing between science and arts, I realize that this site is predominantly writers as opposed to scientists and I have an extremely rocky relationship with journalism as we tend to disagree with how much of a Truth is even possible of having an existence, and we do ever need to be able to agree, but I thought this added comment may be the words that allow for an understanding

Because it is not the case that any reputable academic journal (sometime referred to as a scientific journal) would ever let something like this affair happen. Ever since about the time the the first Telegraphs were connecting the world with nerves as channels that allowed information to travel at speeds many many many times faster than it could be imagined if the person whose thoughts are being communicated had to travel to you to actually share those thoughts. Written word alone in letters still has to be accompanied by a person, even if the person is just a carrier of the thoughts on paper and only delivers them, ideas such as the pony express which sprinted horses in relay races with messages that acted as *batons, is nothing compared to the speed of the Telegraph

and ever since those days, when it didn't take too many scientists getting burned by close-but-not-cigar records of truth in writing that conveys information necessary for scientists to preform lab experiments. It was the very reason the first science journals appeared and rapidly turned into the only thing that scientists trusted to be just the facts, and no story or experience to be felt or interpreted or have an opinion on unless your were going to write about how the temperature of a bunsen burner's flame made your skin feel, and in lab to researchers that is useless information.

There are psychology and some particle physics which have no quantifiable measurements that can be taken and so the experiments are really nothing more than thought, and not even a completely fabricated collision machine that smashes the minds of Freud and Jung does anything in real life that can be looked at or measure, these are more philosophy/religion disciplines that have some branch that reaches into science. But these days and during the time the article claims this affair took place, even for particle physics and psychology, no reputable journal would have done such a foolish thing. As that practice is foolish, and unless it is never done, you will eventually be fooled, even if they only published one out of every fifty-thousand articles published and only because he was the leading scientists, if that was your practice (to allow for foolish behavior once out of every 50,000 times, you would eventually be discredited, as they all are

and in fact by 1996, you didn't even have to be fooled, if you got publishing an article that was not reviewed by all researching universities in that discipline, your journal would be kicked to the curb

and technically the only difference between a publication before and after is that the universities who do graduate research in that discipline drop their subscription, because they can't afford to waste precious time nor money on a idea that was not based on pure cut and dry, unforgiving black&white measured truth.

The is no committee or board, no bureaucracy and nothing political about what journals are considered reputable and which ones are not. There is no board of appeals, but at the same time yes they allow for mistakes, but not careless disregard for procedure. Science doesn't work that way. And it's not because scientists aren't capable of letting their hair down or having feelings, it is just they realize there is one way and only one way to do science, and they all understand why science has to be like that, there is no confusion among any scientists about what is and is not Science

it just doesn't happen
dusty
Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:20:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,770
Neurons: 5,765
fixed typos emboldened

It's not to say that I don't appreciate writing, or see the beauty in poetry. I fully understand how useless even a stern language like German would be if it were incapable of communicating a thought of laughter, humor, intelling of a joke.

I should not have been so condescending of the two sets of bachelors, the first being arts and letters and the second of science. But are necessary degrees to keep this world from remaining a hell to everyone at all times.

The Arts & Sciences are different, but they are of the same realm, serving the same purpose, as they compliment to become whole.

There is no fuller life, no relationship so intimate as with those who allow you to be yourself unrestrained, free to let every emotion run it's course so that it can either be nurtured in the garden so that it can grow or just run completely through you so that it can be shaken off into the gutter to be drained away rather then remaining to form a pit in your stomach, which can happen with the smallest negative emotion that is not dealt with. It can form a pit if left alone long enough and can have such a gravity it's known as a black hole. Whereas Love, so long as it understands itself and never forgets what love is, never grows into a monster of destruction the way negativity does when it's never dealt with.

The Southern California Affair may allow for the polar halves of Whole to remain in an intimate relationship with true intimacy that has depth, but these intimate moments are the cause of harm to those who would read it, and believe it. Everything that is wrong is this world is due in large to confusion among the key individuals, confusion as opposed to understanding, but confusion is NOT the polar halve of understanding, as their is a world of difference between not knowing because you haven't learned and being confused because you think you know but don't realize you are mistaken, although often times denial is the reason mistakes are not realized.

So when something happens that is necessary to keep science in a healthy relationship with arts, when the frustration must be worked through by the arts in papers these this article's story, intimate interactions do not need to be distributed for public consumption, and when they are, less damage to society's understanding is done when it is categorized as sarcasm, or a play just for fun.

I understand the back and forth jabs or ribbing between science and arts, I realize that this site is predominantly writers as opposed to scientists and I have an extremely rocky relationship with journalism as we tend to disagree with how much of a Truth is even possible of having an existence, and we do not ever need to be able to agree, but I thought this added comment may be the words that allow for an understanding

Because it is not the case that any reputable academic journal (sometime referred to as a scientific journal) would ever let something like this affair happen. Ever since about the time the the first Telegraphs were connecting the world with nerves as channels that allowed information to travel at speeds many many many times faster than it could be imagined if the person whose thoughts are being communicated had to travel to you to actually share those thoughts. Written word alone in letters -- postal delivered -- still has to be accompanied by a person, even if the person is just a carrier of the thoughts on paper and only delivers them, ideas such as the pony express which sprinted horses in relay races with messages that acted as *batons, is nothing compared to the speed of the Telegraph

and ever since those days, when it didn't take too many scientists getting burned by close-but-not-cigar records of truth in writing that conveys information necessary for scientists to preform lab experiments. It was the very reason the first science journals appeared and rapidly turned into the only thing that scientists trusted to be just the facts, and no story or experience to be felt or interpreted or have an opinion on unless your were going to write about how the temperature of a bunsen burner's flame made your skin feel, and in lab to researchers that is useless information.

Literally just the facts ma-am

And even those data most only be taken as accurate as they truly are measurable. Significant figures and the extend they can be trusted to remain accurate can and does change the calculations

There are psychology and some particle physics which have no quantifiable measurements that can be taken and so the experiments are really nothing more than thought, and not even a completely fabricated collision machine that smashes the minds of Freud and Jung does anything in real life that can be looked at or measured, these are more philosophy/religion disciplines that have some branch that reaches into science. But these days and during the time the article claims this affair took place (1996 Gregorian years), even for particle physics and psychology, no reputable journal would have done such a foolish thing. As that practice is foolish, and unless it is never done, you will eventually be fooled, even if they only published one out of every fifty-thousand articles foolishly , if that was your practice (to allow for foolish behavior once out of every 50,000 times, you would eventually be discredited, as they all are

and in fact by 1996, you didn't even have to be fooled, if you got publishing an article that was not reviewed by all researching universities in that discipline, your journal would be kicked to the curb, meaning research universities would cancel their subscription because other researcher need to be able to count on your word

they can't afford to waste precious time nor money on a idea that was not based on pure cut and dry, unforgiving black&white measured truth.

The is no committee or board, no bureaucracy and nothing political about what journals are considered reputable and which ones are not. There is no board of appeals, but at the same time yes they allow for mistakes, but not careless disregard for procedure. Science doesn't work that way. And it's not because scientists aren't capable of letting their hair down or having feelings, it is just they realize there is one way and only one way to do science, and they all understand why science has to be like that, there is no confusion among any scientists about what is and is not Science

it just doesn't happen

Ebenezer Son
Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:30:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/23/2013
Posts: 689
Neurons: 3,275
"Academic left" does it mean those with a radical views to change something within the academic field?
dusty
Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:38:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,770
Neurons: 5,765
I am not sure what it means, but what is considered legit to scientists isn't exactly shouted from every roof top because only very niche scientists in hyper specialized disciplines will be able to interpret exactly what the articles of reputable journals mean, most people would have trouble even caring to known what they are saying even if it were possible to easily explain. But there is no problem with any radical scientists attempting to influence scientists, the general public sure, but only because there is money at stake or crazy Christians who insist on probably the most amazing work of putting complicate science into laymens terms but not only have scriptures been obscured, we have have a quarter of the New Testament written by someone who despises Christ and his message writing instructions about how a "true" Christian should frame his mind.

Meanwhile the people who are so busy frantically doing anything they can to get people to believe lies, these same people somewhere deep down believe they are defending God. I don't say this to belittle anyone or try to guilt trip, nobody should be fooled into believing they are less than for making a mistake, Surprise! it's what humans do, we mess up, make stupid decisions and then cover them up with lies.

When we really should be thinking, "Is what I doing bad, or do I feel lying is necessary because the person I am tempted to lie to, I am really be telling him to where his can stick his thumb because there is nothing wrong with having the courage to be myself"

Religions should be free to believe whatever they want. Hell my ancestors had to leave Wales in the middle of the night for there religious beliefs, I just think it's foolish to force an interpretation of the meaning of the scriptures that is obviously way off base, but I understand how it makes no sense to others when I say Genesis should really be the plural of Genus because the book tells a story of how the Genus that human beings came to be going way back to the first organisms that reproduced sexually, Adam and Eve, but I don't care who people believe so long as they don't mess everything up for people who believe something else.

What makes my blood boil is how the lies did work their way into science, and I personally believe if young minds were not taught facts that never happened (AKA lies) that we do know enough to essentially know dang near everything we need to know. But anyone who tries to tell me that gravity has nothing to do with relative difference of densities and objects and the oceans they are in when gravity's force exerted is measured I will call them ignorant to their face no matter where they went to school or what position or tenure they hold. They are overlooking facts and evidence that cannot be denied so I don't care what evidence they try to present, if I know it's BS and fabricated I don't care what authority gives it their seal approval, it just means they are no authority in my eyes.

I don't care if that means we didn't land on the moon or if the moon doesn't cause the oceans tides, it is not my responsibility to provide proof for anybody's beliefs, the beliefs are mine from person experience. And this Heaven, people are free to think whatever they want, alls I am saying is I won't be forced into someone's fantasy point of view, they are free to deny any truth they wish or even all of them. My life works best for me if I deny none of the truths. It does make life harder sometimes, but it's not believing the truth that makes life unpleasant, it's the rat bastards that make you pay for not believing the lies that they choose to believe.

I don't care if misery loves company more than life itself, if I am suddenly supposed to be that company there is going to be problems that go beyond me trash talking NASA
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 11:26:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,618
Neurons: 61,897
Ebenezer Son,

The "Academic Left" refers to the political ideology here in the U.S., particularly those in educational settings (academia). Some of those ideas that concern the political Left are described in the article, a section of which I pasted below, with the terms in question placed in bold.

This is not to say that these topics are the exclusive domain of the political Left, but that they are identified in most people's minds as being primarily of concern to the Left.


Sokal said he was inspired to submit the hoax article after reading Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science (1994), by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt. In their book, Gross and Levitt reported an anti-intellectual trend in university liberal arts departments (especially English departments) which had caused them to become dominated by a "trendy" branch of post-modernist deconstructionism.

Higher Superstition (Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science (1994), by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt) argued that in the 1990s, a group of academics whom the authors referred to collectively as "the Academic Left" was dominated by professors who concentrated on racism, sexism, and other perceived prejudices, and that science was eventually included among their targets—later provoking the "Science Wars", which questioned the validity of scientific objectivity.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.