From: glevy-AT-acnet.pratt.edu Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 23:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SOKAL CONT. (APOLOGY) SCOTT R MCLEMEE wrote: > but the ethical question of whether or not Sokal violated the > tacit norm of scholarly communication by his action is a real and > serious question, for example. The tacit assumption here is that academics and scholarly journals behave normally in an ethical manner. While they may have ethical ideals, their behavior is generally ruled by other aethical considerations. Had Sokal just submitted a mainstream non-leftist science article, would it have been accepted for publication by _Social Text_? I think not. It was only because the editors believed that the article was written from a perspective in favor with those of the editors that the article was published. More generally, academics fight with each other every day using non-ethical weapons. Who is appointed and re-appointed? What are the criteria used _in practice_? Whose "ethics" are being used in these considerations? > Secondly, there is the question of whether or not > interdisciplinary work should, or even can, be subjected to the > same means of evaluation appropriate to more traditional work. > Sokal notes that a persona competent in physics would have > laughed at his manuscript. Was SOCIAL TEXT required to have > Sokal's manuscript evaluated by another physicist? If the editors didn't have the background to understand the meaning of the article, then -- damn right -- they should have had readers who were familiar with the topic and the literature to review the article and make suggestions and recommendations prior to publication. Despite the above, I have mixed feelings about this affair. Why have the "Marxists" identified pomo as the enemy? Why, in the course of this discussion, do they take such special glee over the results? Who will use this technique next? ... against whom? Jerry --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005