Sokal and So-called science

(Hat tip: Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy.)

Famously, half a decade or so ago, physicist Alan Sokal wrote an article, titled Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. It was accepted by and published in the journal Social Text.

Not long afterward, Sokal revealed his article to be a hoax, which was swallowed whole by the journal.

This post is not only an excuse to bookmark the page where these articles may be found, but because I think the episode has bearing on any number of topics. For example, I can't help but wonder if the editors of Social Text found the article "too good to check" (Ra^ther like a certain broadcast news organization we all know and love).

A sizeable fraction of those on the left seem to have bought into "deconstruction". This is alleged to be the notion that facts don't exist outside of societal and cultural definitions. In other words, if I punch you in the nose, the only reason your nose hurts is because our culture has decided to attach meaning to the concepts of "nose" and "hurt".

The reason I say "alleged" above is that I can't resist the suspicion that all the alleged definitions of deconstruction are spoofs. I find it hard to believe that college-educated folks would seriously believe something that – ultimately – declared all the work they've done meaningless.

Be that as it may, a few gems from the article where Sokal explains why he perpetrated his hoax:

...Gallup poll from June 1993. The exact question was: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings: 1) human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; 2) human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?" The results were 35% developed with God, 11% developed without God, 47% God created in present form, 7% no opinion. A poll from July 1982 (Gallup 1982, 208-214) found almost identical figures, but gave breakdowns by sex, race, education, region, age, income, religion, and community size. Differences by sex, race, region, income and (surprisingly) religion were rather small. By far the largest difference was by education: only 24% of college graduates supported creationism, compared to 49% of high-school graduates and 52% of those with a grade-school education. So maybe the worst science teaching is at the elementary and secondary levels.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the problem some folks have with the dogmatic presentation of evolution as Revealed Truth seems to me to lie less with the nature of evolutionary theory (or even of Darwinism) than with the knowledge and ability of those who are charged with the task of teaching science in our schools.

A couple of other gems:

Fair enough: scientists are in fact the first to advise skepticism in the face of other people's (and one's own) truth claims. But a sophomoric skepticism, a bland (or blind) agnosticism, won't get you anywhere. Cultural critics, like historians or scientists, need an informed skepticism: one that can evaluate evidence and logic, and come to reasoned (albeit tentative) judgments based on that evidence and logic. At this point Ross may object that I am rigging the power game in my own favor: how is he, a professor of American Studies, to compete with me, a physicist, in a discussion of quantum mechanics? (Or even of nuclear power – a subject on which I have no expertise whatsoever.) But it is equally true that I would be unlikely to win a debate with a professional historian on the causes of World War I. Nevertheless, as an intelligent lay person with a modest knowledge of history, I am capable of evaluating the evidence and logic offered by competing historians, and of coming to some sort of reasoned (albeit tentative) judgment. (Without that ability, how could any thoughtful person justify being politically active?)

How indeed? And for that matter, why?

A quarter-century ago, at the height of the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, Noam Chomsky observed that:

George Orwell once remarked that political thought, especially on the left, is a sort of masturbation fantasy in which the world of fact hardly matters. That's true, unfortunately, and it's part of the reason that our society lacks a genuine, responsible, serious left-wing movement.

Perhaps that's unduly harsh, but there's unfortunately a significant kernel of truth in it. Nowadays the erotic text tends to be written in (broken) French rather than Chinese, but the real-life consequences remain the same.

Indeed. One major complaint about leftist thought is that intentions are what appear to matter, not results.