Editing Sokal affair (section)

=== 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>