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

thoughts?

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.

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.

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Jun 4 2006, 05:43 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?

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.

This post has been edited by The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A: Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM

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:


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?

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:



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:


(IMG:http://cthings.com/blogger/blog/uploaded_images/fist-725722.gif)

lol, wangs.

Bigby's Clenched Fist!

/end D&D nerd mode

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

Edit: Removed straw man.

This post has been edited by zaragosa: Jun 5 2006, 07:45 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.

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 ;)

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.

irony'd!

?que, hombre?