using good ole lexisnexis for one of my papers, i came across this article.

thoughts?

Ah, the Sokal Affair

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 :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


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

Ouch indeed. Should've gone with positivism, gnu.

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".

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Jun 2 2006, 01:54 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.

OK, yes you all 'got' me.

:lol:


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)



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?

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.

This post has been edited by Mr Beer: Jun 2 2006, 11:57 PM

oh gnuneo, i hoped to catch a bigger fish then you

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 post-postmodernism 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? ;)



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.

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

This post has been edited by Stimulant: Jun 3 2006, 01:38 AM

QUOTE

100%

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 :P), 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. :lol:

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?

This post has been edited by Mr Beer: Jun 3 2006, 03:02 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.

:lol:

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?

This post has been edited by Mr Beer: Jun 3 2006, 07:59 AM

gnu,

How did you get this:

from this:

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.

lol... I am speechless... The article doesn't critique Post-modernism, it critques stupid people.

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:

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*.

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.

Well, I can see I'm on dangerous ground, I don't want to be the first to suffer your wizardly wrath.

This post has been edited by Mr Beer: Jun 4 2006, 03:01 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.

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.

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: - gotta be a winner. :color:


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. :o

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.



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.

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.

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

Damn, this is some serious pwnage. Thanks for that Stimulant.

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?





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.