Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:21:03 -0500 From: rahul-AT-peaches.ph.utexas.edu (Rahul Mahajan) Subject: Re: SOKAL AND THE STAR SYSTEM Scott: > Somebody posted an article here claiming that Alan Sokal's > article was published in SOCIAL TEXT because he is a "star," and > nobody questions the work of a "star." This is, simply, absurd. > Sokal is not a star; and I am told that NYU's physics > depopartment, where Sokal teaches, is not considered particularly > strong. The program headed by SOCIAL TEXT editor Andrew Ross, > also of NYU, is another story: the big bucks were located for > him, and he genuinely is a "star" -- a celebrity of the cultural > studies scene. Guess which one is most likely to get whacked by > the stockholders. I haven't even heard of him and we're in the same field. Even if he was a star, it would be irrelevant, since social scientists would be only more likely to gun for a scientific star, not less. It blows my mind that people are saying what he did is unethical, especially since it's the same goddamn people who are always talking about the social relevance of academic study, how scientists can't arrogate to themselves the right to consider their work in hermetic isolation, blah, blah, blah. Even if, in doing what he did, Sokal violated some of the precious rules of academia, he was clearly doing it to serve a larger social good. Guys like Aronowitz should at least read the crap they write themselves. Rahul --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005