Philosophy of Science 134E
Instructor: Christian Lacroix
Nov. 9, 204
What is the Sokal Affair?
Alan Sokal
- NYU theoretical physicist
- In 1994, he submitted a paper to Social Text, the leading journal of cultural studies, entitled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity”
- This paper was presented as a scholarly article about the “postmodern” philosophical and political implications of 20th physics.
- In fact, as Sokal revealed later, the paper was a hoax, a collection of nonsensical statements designed to look good and to flatter the ideological preconceptions of the editors.
- The paper was published in April 1996.

Boghossian on the Sokal hoax
Paul Boghossian
- American philosopher
- Argues that the Sokal hoax shows how widespread “dubiously coherent relativistic views about truth and evidence” have become.
- That this sort of view is bad consequences for academic work.
- And that to say this does not imply a conservative political point of view.

The content of Sokal’s paper
Sokal’s paper was clearly bad, even non-intelligible.
Dubious main thesis about a recent and speculative physical theory (quantum gravity) supporting post-modernism’s criticism of the notion of truth and the scientific method.
Bad analogies between political notions and mathematical concept like choice and equality.  E.g., quote p.267 (p.84 coursepack).
Factual mistakes.

What the Social Text editors did
The editors could not possibly understand what Sokal was saying or they would not have published his essay.
That it got accepted anyway shows that Social Text is a journal were political views are (sometimes) more important than intelligibility.

What is post-modernism?
Post-modernism: the view that the notions of objectivity, truth, science, fact, etc. are a construct of the modern era, which should be overcome.
Post-modernists argue for relativism, the view that different points of view are equally valid or “true”.
	Compare with relativism in ethics.

What is wrong with Post-Modernism
1- The influence of social factors is greatly exaggerated.
Most philosophers and historians of science admit that there is no such thing as a perfectly objective scientist.
But there is a difference between accepting some influence of social factors, and rejecting the idea of objective truth (e.g., Cole).

2- Relativism doesn’t make sense.
To say that two opposing statements are both true is a contradiction.
	E.g., archaeological view (immigration through Bering Strait) vs. Zuni view 	(emergence from a subterranean world of spirit) of the origin of Native 	Americans.
To say that these statements are both true from a certain point of view is just to say that different people believe in these views.

3- Relativism is self-defeating.
To really believe in relativism implies that a realist view is as acceptable as their own.
But then, why would we prefer the post-modernism/relativism point of view, if all point of view are equivalent?
Why would we accept the post-modernism criticisms of science, if they are not more credible than science itself?

Conclusion
This is still relevant today.
	E.g., article by sociologist Frank Furedi in today’s The Scientist.
There is a great ambiguity in our relationship with science:
People want science to provide cures for all our diseases and solve all our technical problems;
But at the same time people distrust science and scientists.

The science wars won’t come to an end:
The ideas of objective knowledge and truth are still downplayed.  Even many scientists see their work as “one more narrative”.
The pursuit of knowledge as a good in itself is derided.  The emphasis is increasingly on practical applications.