Editing Sokal affair (section)

== Responses ==

=== Follow-up between Sokal and the editors ===
In the article "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies" in the May 1996 issue of ''[[Lingua Franca (magazine)|Lingua Franca]]'', Sokal revealed that "Transgressing the Boundaries" was a hoax and concluded that ''Social Text'' "felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject" because of its ideological proclivities and editorial bias.<ref name="Sokal1996" />

In their defense, ''Social Text''{{'s}} editors said they believed that Sokal's essay "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."<ref>[[Andrew Ross (sociologist)|Andrew Ross]], [https://archive.today/20120525152013/http://www.math.tohoku.ac.jp/~kuroki/Sokal/sokaltxt/00005.txt "A discussion of Jacques Derrida and Deconstruction"], May 24, 1996</ref> Besides criticizing his writing style, ''Social Text''{{'s}} editors accused Sokal of behaving unethically in deceiving them.<ref name="RobbinsRoss1996B" />

Sokal said the editors' response demonstrated the problem that he sought to identify. ''Social Text'', as an academic journal, published the article not because it was faithful, true, and accurate to its subject, but because an "academic authority" had written it and because of the appearance of the obscure writing. The editors said they considered it poorly written but published it because they felt Sokal was an academic seeking their intellectual affirmation. Sokal remarked:

{{quote|My goal isn't to defend science from the barbarian hordes of [[lit crit]] (we'll survive just fine, thank you), but to defend the Left from a trendy segment of itself.&nbsp;... There are hundreds of important political and economic issues surrounding science and technology. Sociology of science, at its best, has done much to clarify these issues. But sloppy sociology, like sloppy science, is useless, or even counterproductive.<ref name="RobbinsRoss1996A" />}}

''Social Text''{{'s}} response revealed that none of the editors had suspected Sokal's piece was a parody. Instead, they speculated Sokal's admission "represented a change of heart, or a folding of his intellectual resolve". Sokal found further humor in the idea that the article's absurdity was hard to spot:

{{quote|In the second paragraph I declare without the slightest evidence or argument, that "physical 'reality' (note the [[scare quotes]])&nbsp;... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct."  Not our <em>theories</em> of physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough. Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment.  I live on the twenty-first floor.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Gross|2010|p=307}}</ref>}}

=== Book by Sokal and Bricmont ===
{{Main|Fashionable Nonsense{{!}}''Fashionable Nonsense''}}
In 1997, Sokal and [[Jean Bricmont]] co-wrote ''[[Impostures intellectuelles]]'' (published in the US as ''Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science'' and in the UK as ''Intellectual Impostures'', 1998).<ref>{{Harvtxt|Sokal|Bricmont|1998a|p=xii}}</ref> The book featured analysis of extracts from established [[intellectual]]s' writings that Sokal and Bricmont claimed misused scientific terminology.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html |title=A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies |access-date=March 5, 2008 |last=Sokal |first=Alan |author-link=Alan Sokal |work=[[Lingua Franca (magazine)|Lingua Franca]] |date=May 1996 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190904042240/https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html |archive-date=September 4, 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> It closed with a critical summary of [[postmodernism]] and criticism of the [[strong programme]] of [[social constructionism]] in the [[sociology of scientific knowledge]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue22/epstei22.htm |title=Postmodernism and the Left |access-date=March 5, 2008 |last=Epstein |first=Barbara |author-link=Barbara Epstein |work=[[New Politics (magazine)|New Politics]]<!-- vol. 6, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 22 --> |date=Winter 1997 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080512004646/http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue22/epstei22.htm <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date=May 12, 2008}}</ref>

In 2008, Sokal published a followup book, ''[[Beyond the Hoax]]'', which revisited the history of the hoax and discussed its lasting implications.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 13, 2008 |title=The Book of the Week: Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/the-book-of-the-week-beyond-the-hoax-science-philosophy-and-culture/401027.article |access-date=June 4, 2020 |website=Times Higher Education |url-access=registration}}</ref>

=== Jacques Derrida ===
The French philosopher [[Jacques Derrida]], whose 1966 statement about [[Einstein's theory of relativity]] was quoted in Sokal's paper, was singled out for criticism, particularly in U.S. newspaper coverage of the hoax.<ref name="Plotnitsky1997">{{Cite journal |last=Plotnitsky |first=Arkady |date=January 1997 |title='But It Is Above All Not True': Derrida, Relativity, and the 'Science Wars' |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/1426652600 |journal=Postmodern Culture |volume=7 |issue=2 |doi=10.1353/pmc.1997.0006 |s2cid=144322398 |id={{ProQuest|1426652600}}}}</ref><ref name="Derrida1997">{{Harvtxt|Derrida|1997}}</ref> One weekly magazine used two images of him, a photo and a [[caricature]], to illustrate a "dossier" on Sokal's paper.<ref name="Derrida1997" /> [[Arkady Plotnitsky]] commented:<ref name="Plotnitsky1997" /> <blockquote>Even given Derrida's status as an icon of intellectual controversy on the Anglo-American cultural scene, it is remarkable that out of thousands of pages of Derrida's published works, a single extemporaneous remark on relativity made in 1966 (before Derrida was "the Derrida" and, in a certain sense, even before "deconstruction")&nbsp;... is made to stand for nearly all of deconstructive or even postmodernist (not a term easily, if at all, applicable to Derrida) treatments of science.</blockquote>
Derrida later responded to the hoax in "{{lang|fr|Sokal et Bricmont ne sont pas sérieux}}" ("Sokal and Bricmont Aren't Serious"), first published on November 20, 1997, in {{lang|fr|[[Le Monde]]}}. He called Sokal's action "sad" for having trivialized Sokal's mathematical work and "ruining the chance to carefully examine controversies" about [[scientific objectivity]].<ref name="Derrida1997" /> Derrida then faulted him and Bricmont for what he considered "an act of intellectual [[bad faith]]" in their follow-up book, ''{{lang|fr|[[Impostures intellectuelles]]}}'': they had published two articles almost simultaneously, one in English in ''[[The Times Literary Supplement]]'' on October 17, 1997<ref>Sokal, Allan and Jean Bricmont. "The Furor Over Impostures intellectuelles: What Is All the Fuss About?" ''[[The Times Literary Supplement]]'' October 17, 1997, p.&nbsp;17.</ref> and one in French in ''{{lang|fr|[[Libération]]}}'' on October 18–19, 1997,<ref>Sokal, Allan and Jean Bricmont. "Que se passe-t-il ?" ''[[Libération]]'' October 18–19, 1997. pp.&nbsp;5–6.</ref> but while the two articles were almost identical, they differed in how they treated Derrida.

The English-language article had a list of French intellectuals who were not included in Sokal's and Bricmont's book: "Such well-known thinkers as [[Althusser]], [[Barthes]], and [[Foucault]]—who, as readers of the TLS will be well aware, have always had their supporters and detractors on both sides of the Channel—appear in our book only in a minor role, as cheerleaders for the texts we criticize." The French-language list, however, included Derrida: "{{lang|fr|Des penseurs célèbres tels qu'Althusser, Barthes, Derrida et Foucault sont essentiellement absents de notre livre}}" ("Famous thinkers such as Althusser, Barthes, Derrida and Foucault are essentially absent from our book").

According to Brian Reilly, Derrida may also have been sensitive to another difference between the French and English versions of ''Impostures intellectuelles''. In the French, his citation from the original hoax article is said to be an "isolated" instance of abuse,<ref>{{Harvtxt|Sokal|Bricmont|1997|p=17}}</ref> whereas the English text adds a parenthetical remark that Derrida's work contained "no systematic misuse (or indeed attention to) science".<ref>{{Harvtxt|Sokal|Bricmont|1998b|p=8}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reilly |first1=Brian J |title=Hopkins Impromptu: Following Jacques Derrida Through Theory's Empire |journal=MLN |date=September 2006 |volume=121 |issue=4 |pages=911–928 |doi=10.1353/mln.2006.0101}}</ref>

Sokal and Bricmont insisted that the difference between the articles was "banal".<ref>Sokal, Allan and Jean Bricmont. "Réponse à Jacques Derrida et Max Dorra". ''[[Le Monde]]'', December 12, 1997. p. 23.</ref> Nevertheless, Derrida concluded that Sokal was not serious in his method, but had used the spectacle of a "quick practical joke" to displace the scholarship Derrida believed the public deserved.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Derrida|2005|p=70}}</ref>

=== Criticism of social sciences ===
Sociologist [[Stephen Hilgartner]], chairman of [[Cornell University]]'s [[science and technology studies]] department, wrote "The Sokal Affair in Context" (1997),<ref name="Hilgartner1997">{{Citation |last=Hilgartner |first=Stephen |title=The Sokal Affair in Context |journal=[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]] |volume=22 |issue=4 |date=Autumn 1997 |pages=506–522 |doi=10.1177/016224399702200404 |s2cid=145740247}}</ref> comparing Sokal's hoax to "Confirmational Response: Bias Among Social Work Journals" (1990), an article by [[William M. Epstein]] published in ''[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]]''.<ref>{{Citation |last=Epstein |first=William M. |title=Confirmational response bias among social work journals |journal=[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]] |volume=15 |issue=1 |year=1990 |pages=9–38 |doi=10.1177/016224399001500102 |s2cid=140863997}}</ref> Epstein used a similar method to Sokal's, submitting fictitious articles to real academic journals to measure their response. Though much more systematic than Sokal's work, it received scant media attention. Hilgartner argued that the "asymmetric" effect of the successful Sokal hoax compared with Epstein's experiment cannot be attributed to its quality, but that "[t]hrough a mechanism that resembles confirmatory bias, audiences may apply less stringent standards of evidence and ethics to attacks on targets that they are predisposed to regard unfavorably."<ref name="Hilgartner1997" /> As a result, according to Hilgartner, though competent in terms of method, Epstein's experiment was largely muted by the more socially accepted [[social work]] discipline he critiqued, while Sokal's attack on [[cultural studies]], despite lacking experimental rigor, was accepted. Hilgartner also argued that Sokal's hoax reinforced the views of well-known pundits such as [[George Will]] and [[Rush Limbaugh]], so that his opinions were amplified by media outlets predisposed to agree with his argument.<ref>{{Citation |last=Hilgartner |first=Stephen |title=The Sokal Affair in Context |journal=[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]] |volume=22 |issue=4 |date=Autumn 1997 |pages=506–522 |doi=10.1177/016224399702200404 |s2cid=145740247}}</ref>

The Sokal Affair extended from academia to the public press. Anthropologist [[Bruno Latour]], who was criticized in ''Fashionable Nonsense'', described the scandal as a "tempest in a teacup". Retired [[Northeastern University]] mathematician-turned social scientist [[Gabriel Stolzenberg]] wrote essays criticizing the statements of Sokal and his allies,<ref>{{cite web |first=Gabriel |last=Stolzenberg |url=http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr |title=Debunk: Expose as a Sham or False |publisher=Math.bu.edu |access-date=November 23, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051130222053/http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/ |archive-date=November 30, 2005 |url-status=live}}</ref> arguing that they insufficiently grasped the philosophy they criticized, rendering their criticism meaningless. In ''[[Social Studies of Science]]'', Bricmont and Sokal responded to Stolzenberg,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/reply_to_stolzenberg_v2.pdf |title=Reply to Gabriel Stolzenberg |work=Social Studies of Science |publisher=Physics.nyu.edu |access-date=April 4, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080530171502/http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/reply_to_stolzenberg_v2.pdf |archive-date=May 30, 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref> denouncing his representations of their work and criticizing his commentary about the "[[strong programme]]" of the sociology of science. Stolzenberg replied in the same issue that their critique and allegations of misrepresentation were based on misreadings. He advised readers to slowly and skeptically examine the arguments of each party, bearing in mind that "the obvious is sometimes the enemy of the true".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stolzenberg |first1=Gabriel |title=Reply to Bricmont and Sokal |url=http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/reply_to_bs.pdf |access-date=March 1, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509172952/http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/reply_to_bs.pdf |archive-date=May 9, 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref> In her 1998 article "The Sokal Hoax: At Whom Are We Laughing?", philosopher of science [[Mara Beller]] compared the "awe" physicists feel for Bohr's obscurity to their "contempt" for Derrida's density.<ref>{{cite web  |last1=Beller |first1=Mara|title=The Sokal Hoax: At Whom Are We Laughing?|url=https://hps.elte.hu/~gk/Sokal/Sokal/Beller.html}}</ref>