Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Utopia-Politics > Science > physics article in Social Text


Posted by: Stimulant Apr 23 2006, 10:11 AM
using good ole lexisnexis for one of my papers, i came across this article.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Posted by: Telum Apr 23 2006, 04:12 PM
Ah, the Sokal Affair

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 2 2006, 02:46 AM
wow - ouch.

excellent, most excellent. i 100% concur with the article, although i disagree with the writers definition of 'capitalism'.

i hadn't known i had been arguing from the feminist critique of modernist physics laugh.gif

Posted by: Telum Jun 2 2006, 04:06 AM
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 1 2006, 10:46 PM)
wow - ouch.

excellent, most excellent. i 100% concur with the article, although i disagree with the writers definition of 'capitalism'.

i hadn't known i had been arguing from the feminist critique of modernist physics laugh.gif
[right][snapback]395601[/snapback][/right]


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

You sir, have been taken in by a psudoscientific bullshit paper designed by a modern physicist to mock psudointellectuals

Posted by: zaragosa Jun 2 2006, 08:40 AM
Ouch indeed. Should've gone with positivism, gnu.

Posted by: miltonfriedman Jun 2 2006, 12:51 PM
YES!! I knew that gnuneo would eventually seize upon it. Oh man, this is too pretty.

now that it has been settled-- gnuneo, why are you so attracted to bullshit? what was the term you used about science? "post-modernist meta-paradigm" or something? damn, arent you a least bit embarrassed about that? being different for the sake of being different is really not that "cool".

Posted by: Mr Beer Jun 2 2006, 10:20 PM
This is pretty funny. I couldn't wade through the whole article, but the stuff at the end abouit mathematics being "patriarchal" and needing to change to be more sensitive to women was fantastic. Assuming you didn't spot the hoax, who could read that and not think "what a wanker"?

You know gnuneo, every now and again you just come out with some cataclysmically embarassing gaffe. "Psyche attack", "revenge magic" and now signing up for a hoax call to make physics more feminist.

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 2 2006, 11:45 PM
OK, yes you all 'got' me.

laugh.gif


however, now for the defense - do you seriously expect me to regard a writer who is attempting to debunk POSTMODERNISM as someone worth listening to? Post-modernism has been intrinsic to science since einsteins relativity, and it is impossible to even look at QM without accepting the basic post-modernist critique - to wit, (from the article)

QUOTE
It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ``reality'', no less than social ``reality'', is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific ``knowledge", far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities.


it is fully accepted by (i thought all) serious scientists that it is impossible to comprehend directly 'reality', instead we must inevitably view it through our own social lens, especially the construct we call language - and for over 50yrs it has been accepted by serious scientists in both the humanities and physical sciences that language can NOT be considered an objective viewpoint, but a politically constructed one.

now, i had thought this article was hideously jargon ridden (which is why i added the "ouch", and also laughed at the 'insight' that i was following a feminist critique (and BTW, a quick study on the net has shown that this is indeed correct)), and i would certainly accept the writers critique of such style of writing - HOWEVER to go from there and accept this suppsed scientists viewpoint that POST-MODERNISM is itself bunk is frankly breathtaking - really quite literally.

to be honest i had not even imagined that anyone with half a brain-cell would reject the basic principles of post-modernism, whist its easy to understand how inbred hicks from the Bible belt can still beleive in 'bloke-onna-cloud' stuff, its far harder to see how supposed educated scientists can still actually beleive in modernism.

so yeah - gee you got me good - but really? a 'fraudulent article supporting Post-modernism?'

is that *really* the best you could come up with?

not very good, is it?

Posted by: Mr Beer Jun 2 2006, 11:55 PM
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 2 2006, 11:45 PM)
OK, yes you all 'got' me.

laugh.gif
[right][snapback]395753[/snapback][/right]


No gnuneo, you "got" yourself.

You read a satire of pseudo-intellectualism and promptly endorsed it. The fact that it happened to be sending up your pet-topic of "modern science as a failed paradigm" and was littered with deliberate scientific errors to flush out people who like to criticise science but don't understand it, is merely some rather delicious icing on a fat, tasty cake.

EDIT

Nice to see your tactic of defending your blunders has changed though. Rather than pretending you made a deliberate error, you turn to attacking the author. Attack is, after all, a good form of defense. In this case however, it rings somewhat hollow.

Posted by: Stimulant Jun 3 2006, 12:01 AM
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/afterword_v1a/afterword_v1a_singlefile.html

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 3 2006, 01:21 AM
stim: with the second link, the author now seems to be saying he was not supporting modernism per se (although it certainly sounds like he was), but was in fact merely critiquing the abuses of postmodernism itself.

in fact he seems much more in line with my own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodern opinions, in that we both accept there *is* a 'real' world, and that values are *not* "different but equal", but also accepting that we cannot possibly apprehend directly the 'real world', nor that there is any validity in the "one city, one idea, one god" approach of modernity.

i'm not so sure - the character of your second link is far less abrasive than the previous one, and i would guess that perhaps it was written much later after he had come to realise that modernism IS dead as a pure paradigm, and that there existed in fact a blending of the two, ie the badly named post-postmodernist critique.

how ironic - that the various recidivist positivists gloating over my 'loss of face', now have to stomach the fact that this guy has actually moved to my own perspective. I suppose i shouldnt gloat - but hey, WTF not? wink.gif



mr beer - are you *really* going to stand by the ridiculous assertion that *i*, a native English-speaker, with a very obvious liking of SF, who is definitely one of the more creative users of english on the forum - REALLY had no idea what 'psyche-attack' sounded like before i used it? When even the non-native-english speakers could see it?

you have to be seriously, seriously deluded - or absolutely desperate to knock me off some perch that exists in your own mind only. I suppose in a way all this garbage about it is somehow a compliment - it shows just how insecure you all are (all as in all those who keep bleating about it).

just give it up - you WILL only end up with more egg on your face the longer you keep bringing it up, and EVEN if it was a mistake (fantastical a notion that is), then to keep bleating about a mere mistake for months and months and months - do you somehow imagine you are gaining mythical 'brownie points' from everyone else?

dear christ - i have had infant classes with more maturity than you lot are showing. And that is an absolute fact.

Posted by: Stimulant Jun 3 2006, 01:37 AM
QUOTE
wow - ouch.

excellent, most excellent. i 100% concur with the article, although i disagree with the writers definition of 'capitalism'.

i hadn't known i had been arguing from the feminist critique of modernist physics 



QUOTE
excellent, most excellent. i 100% concur with the article, although i disagree with the writers definition of 'capitalism'.



QUOTE
i 100% concur with the article

Posted by: Stimulant Jun 3 2006, 01:37 AM
QUOTE
100%

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 3 2006, 02:08 AM
but i DO agree with the article - he may have been *attempting* to create a parody of "postmodernist feminist critique of modernism", and in fact stylistically he hit it on the head, but in fact he does actually state the basics of postmodernism in it - the parody was based upon the fact that HE DIDNT AGREE WITH THEM.

various minor elements such 'morphic fields' etc were very secondary to his main thrust - they were a tool for him to exagerate the style that tom sharp called 'polytechnic sociology lecturer speak', which along with the implicit attack on the extremes of postmodernism (absolute relativity, pure subjectivism, even solipsism) are the focus of his attack.

did i bother to look up 'morphic fields'? no - and thus i accepted i was caught out by the parody, just as i imagine the original study publishers were.


HOWEVER there *is* a double irony here, as in the hoax explanation he is clearly favouring modernism, ie it is essentially a *political* attack on a rival theory, yet later, in your second link he has clearly moved to an acceptance that postmodernism HAS value, and then is moving towards a balance of the two. (which will no doubt leave some german Romantics quite happy in their graves.)

did i get caught out? yes i did - i pondered for some tiny amount of time before posting 100%, knowing as i hadnt follwed every link (nor read the notes) it was a bit risky, but frankly - the bulk of the article is actually accurate, and after all, as even he says, the quotes are actual, not made up, and i simply hadnt realised how strong the desire of so many here to take joy in any slightest mistake i make (BTW, thats not you i'm referring to - you are impersonal in the joy you take in irritating everyone tongue.gif), so i took the risk.

well, live and learn - i'm sure i will just have to commit suicide over the tremendous loss of face i have suffered here, emperor hiro hito having to kiss the boots of Macarthur is just not in the same league. laugh.gif

Posted by: Mr Beer Jun 3 2006, 03:02 AM
gnuneo, I find myself getting embarrassed on your behalf when I read your feeble denials and excuses. This sensation is not mitigated in any way when you stretch them out to the length of a small essay. Tell me, do you think you are fooling anyone? Or are you just talking until you can find something to say?

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 3 2006, 04:31 AM
er, what?

don't know what fucking planet youre on, i really don't.

i've already said on a number of occasions that yes i got caught out by the article - whats your problem, annoyed i've pissed on your fireworks?


tough fucking shit.

Posted by: Mr Beer Jun 3 2006, 07:50 AM
laugh.gif

Ooo, tetchy!

Wait though, I'm confused. You just got through explaining how you are a master of the English language and yet suddenly you can't read and decipher clear sentences? Strange.

Anyway, look, I'm sorry I upset you, just please don't cast a spell on me, OK?

Posted by: zaragosa Jun 3 2006, 10:49 AM
gnu,

How did you get this:
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 3 2006, 04:08 AM)
he has clearly moved to an acceptance that postmodernism HAS value, and then is moving towards a balance of the two.
[right][snapback]395799[/snapback][/right]

from this:
QUOTE(Sokal @ Oct 1996)
I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them. (If science were merely a negotiation of social conventions about what is agreed to be "true'', why would I bother devoting a large fraction of my all-too-short life to it? I don't aspire to be the Emily Post of quantum field theory.)

Posted by: miltonfriedman Jun 3 2006, 01:25 PM
gnuneo, let's be honest here for a second. you accepted this because it was a pretty "cool" article with lots of nonsensical jargons, right? the fact of the matter is you oftentimes launch attack on a particular paradigm without first understanding it. this is why you posted alot on quantum mechanics and interpreted as a way to understand consciousness--an utterly ridiculour claim-- without even bother to understand what quantum mechanics is in the first place.

you cannot make a convincing argument against mainstream paradigm without first understand what the paradigm is, however "cool" the alternative is. the parody sounds cool as a college-dorm banter after 5 beers, but it doesn't fly as a serious argument, and you'll eventually be exposed.

Posted by: Wolfenstein Jun 3 2006, 05:48 PM
lol... I am speechless... The article doesn't critique Post-modernism, it critques stupid people.

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 4 2006, 01:23 AM
QUOTE
gnu,

How did you get this:
QUOTE
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 3 2006, 04:08 AM)
he has clearly moved to an acceptance that postmodernism HAS value, and then is moving towards a balance of the two.

*


from this:
QUOTE
QUOTE(Sokal @ Oct 1996)
I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them. (If science were merely a negotiation of social conventions about what is agreed to be "true'', why would I bother devoting a large fraction of my all-too-short life to it? I don't aspire to be the Emily Post of quantum field theory.)


because this is the key - it is not merely a negotiation of social conventions - yet it is has also been proved beyond normal scientific skepticism (even by Hume, centuries ago) that we simply cannot apprehend 'objective reality'.

this is the post-postmodern perspective, and it is to be noted that he is not attacking the 'social convention' in this, more that he is defending the notion that there *is* an objective reality - this is quite stark contrast to his earlier position, where in the article about the parody he is clearly attacking the whole basis for post-modernism.

it is an entirely different approach.

of course, this is only going on what is written here, without speaking to him cannot say for sure that this is the interpretation he desired from this second article, but it is definitely far more defensive in nature.

mr beer: what kind of spell would you like? Actually i'm sure there are far more experienced spell-casters here, my practical experience of magical operations has largely come about accidentally, by things happening that are unexplainable in a pure materialist paradigm. There are many others here with direct, intentional and conscious experience of magical workings, and perhaps if you ask them nicely they'll cast a spell on you.

i must admit, although i've never actually prepared and set-up a magical revenge, since i posted it it has been working on my imagination... you know, scientific curiosity. rolleyes.gif

wolfy: i can tell that along with most other 'male scientists' here you've never had much contact with actual feminist writings - TBH neither have i, but i did read quite a bit in my humanities courses, and have occasionally browsed some since - if you had you would understand why this articld did not just 'catch out' a lay-man dabbler in QM, but actually an apparently highly credited humanities journal - whilst its possible that every single person who was 'caught' by it did so just because they were "stupid", you might also spare a thought how come it was *actually published*.


Posted by: Wolfenstein Jun 4 2006, 02:30 AM
Gnu,

True I have not read much feminism beyond Simone De Beauvoir... And I read her from an Existentialist prespective... So what?

The point of the article is forgive me for being corney is that it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing... And perhaps it is presumptious of me to say so, but a journal that attempts to promote ideas and real discourse should not publish rubbish.

Posted by: Mr Beer Jun 4 2006, 03:01 AM
Well, I can see I'm on dangerous ground, I don't want to be the first to suffer your wizardly wrath.

Posted by: miltonfriedman Jun 4 2006, 03:19 AM
i think it is quite sad that gnuneo is still trying to spin this with more forced pseudo-intellectual babbles. "Proved beyond scientific skepticism"? though, admittedly, i am actually amazed by gnu's ability to bullshit a short essay on internet board. not many people would go out of their way to compose an essay to get themselves out of a jam on an online board, but gnu posted nearly 50 posts today, all with >200 words. absolutely stunning.

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 4 2006, 03:55 AM
well you know me milt: i like to do my little bit. Naturally my whole focus is on "getting out of a jam". dry.gif

The funniest element is that you are projecting what would be your own weaknesses onto me - i straight-away accepted i had been 'got' - you can't admit you *yourself* said that tyres purchased for work were "free" even months afterwards.

i hate to think of the slobbering we'd have to put up with if this was you caught out.


Mr Beer: are you *sure*? - it could be very interesting. Although the correct term is actually a magician - magicians are the ones who rigorously plan and execute formal magic, and keep results. Ask Llyw.

me - i'm just a tyro mystic, upon whom the universe has seen fit to heap experiences i have neither looked for, not particularly wanted most of the time.


but are you *really* sure you don't fancy being the subject of a planned 'revenge magic' attack? Just think how good it will look on your CV...

"was a subject in an internet based 'revenge magic' attack". rolleyes.gif - gotta be a winner. color.gif


wolfy: i simply doubt the publishers of that article could have even concieved that someone would write a parody with the idea of promoting modernism - its like creationists claiming they have hoaxed a darwinist journal, or newtonians attacking relativity, its just preposterous. And there is a certain amount of trust in such matters (which the author would have known), which the authors deliberate use of incredible jargonese mixed in with actual QM basics and direct quotes from respected scientists was a direct abuse of, add all this together and its fairly easy to see how a lay-man on QM could get suckered.

i'm still persoanlly astonished at actually reading a modern scientist who was attacking the basic premises of post-modernism in an attempt to defend the basic premises of modernism - its just... astounding. I mean, you read about people who beleive in flat-earth etc, but you don't actually expect to read someone who really *does* beleive it. ohmy.gif

Posted by: miltonfriedman Jun 4 2006, 04:29 AM
QUOTE
well you know me milt: i like to do my little bit. Naturally my whole focus is on "getting out of a jam". 

The funniest element is that you are projecting what would be your own weaknesses onto me - i straight-away accepted i had been 'got' - you can't admit you *yourself* said that tyres purchased for work were "free" even months afterwards.


except that i said they should not be taken into cost consideration. are you interested in becoming a chubby office drone? then pick up where DS left off. while i can see that imitating another person's posting style may be the only way for you to salvage this whole debacle, there are plenty of more knowledgeble, less dumb posters for you to copy from.

QUOTE
i hate to think of the slobbering we'd have to put up with if this was you caught out.


hence, i tend to discuss things that i know. please, do you see me walking around talking about "post-modern meta-paradigm"? no? exactly. i have no need to search out anti-mainstream views to make myself look different from others.

Posted by: Mr Beer Jun 4 2006, 04:39 AM
No gnuneo, you would reap the benefits from such action, as a sort of Harry Potter of the internet. Imagine the kudos from demonstrating your magical paradigm! You could be selling your own brand of wands and robes all over the globe.

Whereas I would have to suffer the consequences of whatever devastating curse you conjured up. I can't see what's in it for me.

Posted by: zaragosa Jun 4 2006, 09:39 AM
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 4 2006, 03:23 AM)
he is defending the notion that there *is* an objective reality[right][snapback]395942[/snapback][/right]

And this, in your mind, doesn't somehow conflict with the postmodern assertion that there is no such thing?

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A Jun 4 2006, 10:28 AM
Damn, this is some serious pwnage. Thanks for that Stimulant.

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 4 2006, 03:50 PM
QUOTE
And this, in your mind, doesn't somehow conflict with the postmodern assertion that there is no such thing?


yes, of course it does - the key element is that it is *defending* this notion - in the article he wrote about the hoax he was *attacking* the notion othat reality is a social construction.

it is a very clear difference - in the first article he is attacking the basic premise of post-modernism, in the second he is defending a premise of modernism that also exists in post-postmodernism.

you can see this?



QUOTE
hence, i tend to discuss things that i know.


milt - you almost never "discuss" anything - you run around pathetically attempting to find mistakes that others might have made, in the wierd beleif that critiquing others someone makes your own 'star' shine brighter.

i admitted straight-away i got caught out, and laughed about it - you are STILL EVEN NOW trying to defend your mistake.

frankly you've been bitch-slapped so many times we should just start calling you Gimp.


Gimp.

Posted by: zaragosa Jun 4 2006, 05:11 PM
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 4 2006, 05:50 PM)
in the first article he is attacking the basic premise of post-modernism, in the second he is defending a premise of modernism that also exists in post-postmodernism.[right][snapback]396031[/snapback][/right]

Sokal's defense of an obvious assertion that is (1) a tenet of modernism, and (2) contrary to the foundation of post-modernism cannot be taken to imply a position on a third philosophy.
The structure of the debate seems to be:
Modernism claims A. Postmodernism claims B. Post-postmodernism claims C.
First, Sokal claims not-B. Then he reiterates A. This does not imply C in any reasonable fashion.

Posted by: miltonfriedman Jun 4 2006, 05:37 PM
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 4 2006, 10:50 AM)
milt - you almost never "discuss" anything - you run around pathetically attempting to find mistakes that others might have made, in the wierd beleif that critiquing others someone makes your own 'star' shine brighter.

i admitted straight-away i got caught out, and laughed about it - you are STILL EVEN NOW trying to defend your mistake.

frankly you've been bitch-slapped so many times we should just start calling you Gimp.
Gimp.
[right][snapback]396031[/snapback][/right]

oh noes, gnu thinks i have been bitchslapped. let me quickly cast a protect shield on myself to deflect criticisms. honestly, look at the Science forum-- did i not rammed your ass time after time on topics ranging from evolution to economics? yep.

no, gnu. you tried hard to explain yourself that you got it right before we laughed our asses off at your explanation. it's like how you tried to say the phrase "psyche attack" was an "experiment" on this board. let me get straight to the point-- i know my shit, you don't. and copying one of DS's flame won't change that. I would ask you to point out where the flaw is on my definition of sunk cost, but i wont bother. this thread is enough for me.

cheers.

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 4 2006, 11:53 PM
Gimp: if you *really* have "rammed my ass" so many times, then it a strange truth that you remain incredibly intellectually insecure (as evidenced by the oft-noted fact that the almost never stick your neck out, never put forward your own beleifs, never argue FOR anthing), whereas i have little fear in exploring new intellectual territories, and risking scorn for openly discussing them.

in fact, by any rational analysis, even if you had "rammed my ass" on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC WE HAVE EVER ARGUED OVER it would still be me that would be smelling of roses, due to your insecurity, paranoias, warped notions and most of all - general character.

You are the classic example of someone who is overly intellectual, yet also intellectually weak and insecure. You enjoy knocking others down, and if they are 14yr olds who have not a patch on your trained debating skills then all the easier - and thus better - for you.

I'm simply not sure what describes you better - Gimp, or just pathetic.

now go away - from now on i will be ignoring any of your posts that do not contain useful information, and/or serious debate.


QUOTE
Sokal's defense of an obvious assertion that is (1) a tenet of modernism, and (2) contrary to the foundation of post-modernism cannot be taken to imply a position on a third philosophy.
The structure of the debate seems to be:
Modernism claims A. Postmodernism claims B. Post-postmodernism claims C.
First, Sokal claims not-B. Then he reiterates A. This does not imply C in any reasonable fashion.


are being serious?

do you know the tenets of post-postmodernism? or perhaps you DO know them and are trying to continue a dead argument, presumably for purposes of amusement. I had not expected such miltonish behaviour from you. (sorry, i mean of course "Gimpish").

i refuse to accept you can have read and understood all the previous thread and can honestly make such a stupid statement as the above.

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A Jun 5 2006, 12:03 AM
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 4 2006, 06:53 PM)
make such a stupid statement as the above.
[right][snapback]396118[/snapback][/right]


QUOTE
100%

Posted by: miltonfriedman Jun 5 2006, 12:15 AM
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 4 2006, 06:53 PM)
Gimp: if you *really* have "rammed my ass" so many times, then it a strange truth that you remain incredibly intellectually insecure (as evidenced by the oft-noted fact that the almost never stick your neck out, never put forward your own beleifs, never argue FOR anthing), whereas i have little fear in exploring new intellectual territories, and risking scorn for openly discussing them.

in fact, by any rational analysis, even if you had "rammed my ass" on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC WE HAVE EVER ARGUED OVER it would still be me that would be smelling of roses, due to your insecurity, paranoias, warped notions and most of all - general character.

You are the classic example of someone who is overly intellectual, yet also intellectually weak and insecure. You enjoy knocking others down, and if they are 14yr olds who have not a patch on your trained debating skills then all the easier - and thus better - for you.

I'm simply not sure what describes you better - Gimp, or just pathetic.

now go away - from now on i will be ignoring any of your posts that do not contain useful information, and/or serious debate.
are being serious?[right][snapback]396118[/snapback][/right]

hahaahahahaha... "general character"?
listen, neil. it is your insecurity that has driven you towards anything that sounds remotely "cool" and non-mainstream. honestly, i hope you can see that by now. had you become more educated and less of a failure you would have been able to analyze the article critically and spot the parody.

i mean you want to see pathetic? here is a fine example:
QUOTE
I agree with this 100%


i hope you will eventually realize that it's your incessant need to become different and cool that has led you to this penultimate end of embarrassment. isnt it time you try to find your worth in real life and make something out of yourself?

Posted by: Baron Von Uberleet Jun 5 2006, 04:46 AM
I finally got the time to actually finish reading this thread and all I have to say is that I have met a number pathetic people in my life and from them all, gnuneo easily makes the top five.

I am not going to let this thead degrade into flames and remind you that you are a 33 year old pseudo-intellectual with no profession and poor taste in women. Instead, I will concentrate on your behavior on this forum.

Tell me, is that a coincidence that you make idiotic statements on a regular basis and make yourself appear even more ridiculous when you try to weasel out of it? Did you notice that this happens primarily to two people on U-P: you and necrolyte. What do you think the reasons are? At least necrolyte is not a pseudo-intellectual and does not have intecourse with whale-sharks.

At any rate, I would like to bring your attention to this bit:

QUOTE
Mr beer: what kind of spell would you like? Actually i'm sure there are far more experienced spell-casters here, my practical experience of magical operations has largely come about accidentally, by things happening that are unexplainable in a pure materialist paradigm. There are many others here with direct, intentional and conscious experience of magical workings, and perhaps if you ask them nicely they'll cast a spell on you.


How do you expect the endless pages of your meaningless pseudo-intellectual banter to even remotely come close to being taken seiously, when you actually believe you can "cast magic spells"? While I am aware that long-term usage of LSD and such has turned you into a mentally handicaped wreck, you have to realize that talking about magic spells has completely burried your (already long dead) credibility.

Finally, I suspect that a lot of posters here, Mr. Beer and myself included, would love to cast a spell of their own on you, specifically on your face. While I do not know the exact incantation in Latin, but it looks something like this:


user posted image






Posted by: libvertaruan Jun 5 2006, 07:37 AM
QUOTE(Mr Beer @ Jun 4 2006, 12:39 AM)
No gnuneo, you would reap the benefits from such action, as a sort of Harry Potter of the internet. Imagine the kudos from demonstrating your magical paradigm! You could be selling your own brand of wands and robes all over the globe.
[right][snapback]395967[/snapback][/right]

lol, wangs.

Posted by: Mr Beer Jun 5 2006, 10:50 AM
QUOTE(Baron Von Uberleet @ Jun 5 2006, 04:46 AM)
user posted image
[right][snapback]396164[/snapback][/right]


Bigby's Clenched Fist!

/end D&D nerd mode

Posted by: zaragosa Jun 5 2006, 07:44 PM
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 5 2006, 01:53 AM)
are being serious?
[right][snapback]396118[/snapback][/right]

Am. Sokal specifically addresses the duality between modernism and postmodernism, and unequivocally supports the former throughout.

Edit: Removed straw man.

Posted by: Thor of the Orange Hammer Jun 10 2006, 02:18 PM
gnuneo,

It is time my friend to walk away and let them have thier little joke.

One must at times remember that humor is a wonderful thing. In being the but of th joke you have made thier day.

Glory in thier elation at having caught you, lean back and smile.


Posted by: gnuneo Jun 12 2006, 01:13 AM
ed my friend, i had already done that in my first post.


what was far more important, and worth continuing against this onslaught is the issues involved in the debate, these are fundamental and worth fighting for.

the writer of the hoax was arguing *for* modernism, a beleif that there is no point to existence, that the material world is the only 'real' one, that it is possible to 'objectively' view this material world, and a whole host of other beleifs carried along with it (for instance, you may be interested to know that marxism is based upon modernism/materialism - it was the post-modernist feminist critique of marxism that finally swept it away into the philosophical history bin, apart from the weak-brained ivory tower intellectuals amongst us).

this cannot just be left alone because of a bunch of yapping yahoos beleive that in numbers they can overcome truth, that by shouting down and attempting to humiliate they can distort or prevent truth from coming out.

as a matter of fact, after further thought i have realised this hoaxer should at the very least apologise for this article - it was a profoundly unscientific and frankly a despicable act.

let me explain wink.gif

he first of all deliberately chose a journal that had recently tried out skipping peer review, presumably for reasons of finance/time. This was critical - the journal relied heavily on the basic fundamental of trust from its contributers, and would have relied upon the general knowledge/ability of its main editors to weed out the obviously below-par articles.

this he knows.

but there is also no way they can be experts across the whole fields of humanities, and this he also knows.

so he spends time creating a 'vehicle', an article written with accurate and genuine quotes, but heavily interspersed with maximum jargonese cleverly designed to look like it was written by someone who knew what it meant.

now - he *knew* the editors were unlikely to spend the time following every jargonistic laden article they recieve, especially in the expanding sciences where new jargon was being created or re-interpretated literally every day, and that the authors therefore would be looking at the genuine quotes, at the style quality, and assuming that the contributers presumably knew what they were on about.

this is what 'non-peer-reviewed' journal *means*.

and he knew it.

so that was the missile case, and it is very well designed indeed - he is to be entirely congratulated upon that, although his aim, that of discrediting the 'non-peer-review'ing system is really quite petty, and presumably it worked quite well till this jerk came along.

but his warhead - modernism - is frankly unbeleivable, and almost certainly was a major reason the editors did not spot the hoax. Modernism is DEAD, and his attempting to argue for its case is simply appalling science - had he attempted to place a *serious* article defending modernism in a humanities journal he would have been laughed to the moon and back, and rightly so.

he should apologise, and realise he has become a post-postmodernist.

Posted by: Stimulant Jun 13 2006, 09:53 AM
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 11 2006, 07:13 PM)
ed my friend, i had already done that in my first post.
what was far more important, and worth continuing against this onslaught is the issues involved in the debate, these are fundamental and worth fighting for.

the writer of the hoax was arguing *for* modernism, a beleif that there is no point to existence, that the material world is the only 'real' one, that it is possible to 'objectively' view this material world, and a whole host of other beleifs carried along with it (for instance, you may be interested to know that marxism is based upon modernism/materialism - it was the post-modernist feminist critique of marxism that finally swept it away into the philosophical history bin, apart from the weak-brained ivory tower intellectuals amongst us).

this cannot just be left alone because of a bunch of yapping yahoos beleive that in numbers they can overcome truth, that by shouting down and attempting to humiliate they can distort or prevent truth from coming out.

as a matter of fact, after further thought i have realised this hoaxer should at the very least apologise for this article - it was a profoundly unscientific and frankly a despicable act.

let me explain wink.gif

he first of all deliberately chose a journal that had recently tried out skipping peer review, presumably for reasons of finance/time. This was critical - the journal relied heavily on the basic fundamental of trust from its contributers, and would have relied upon the general knowledge/ability of its main editors to weed out the obviously below-par articles.

this he knows.

but there is also no way they can be experts across the whole fields of humanities, and this he also knows.

so he spends time creating a 'vehicle', an article written with accurate and genuine quotes, but heavily interspersed with maximum jargonese cleverly designed to look like it was written by someone who knew what it meant.

now - he *knew* the editors were unlikely to spend the time following every jargonistic laden article they recieve, especially in the expanding sciences where new jargon was being created or re-interpretated literally every day, and that the authors therefore would be looking at the genuine quotes, at the style quality, and assuming that the contributers presumably knew what they were on about.

this is what 'non-peer-reviewed' journal *means*.

and he knew it.

so that was the missile case, and it is very well designed indeed - he is to be entirely congratulated upon that, although his aim, that of discrediting the 'non-peer-review'ing system is really quite petty, and presumably it worked quite well till this jerk came along.

but his warhead - modernism - is frankly unbeleivable, and almost certainly was a major reason the editors did not spot the hoax. Modernism is DEAD, and his attempting to argue for its case is simply appalling science - had he attempted to place a *serious* article defending modernism in a humanities journal he would have been laughed to the moon and back, and rightly so.

he should apologise, and realise he has become a post-postmodernist.
[right][snapback]397312[/snapback][/right]


irony'd!

Posted by: gnuneo Jun 13 2006, 03:13 PM
?que, hombre?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)