Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

" width="8" height="8"/> physics article in Social Text
Outline · Standard · [ Linear+ ]
Stimulant
post Apr 23 2006, 10:11 AM
Post #1


MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR M
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,472
Joined: 10-December 02
Member No.: 210



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

thoughts?
Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post

2 Pages < 1 2 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

Replies(31 - 43)
zaragosa
post Jun 4 2006, 05:11 PM
Post #31


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,038
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



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.
*


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.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Jun 4 2006, 05:37 PM
Post #32


Look for my paper in the Journal of Exp Social Psychology! (
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 6,119
Joined: 8-September 02
From: Rockville, MD
Member No.: 164



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.
*


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
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jun 4 2006, 11:53 PM
Post #33


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,367
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



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.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A
post Jun 5 2006, 12:03 AM
Post #34


New Jersey Over All
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,642
Joined: 14-June 03
From: The Great State of New Jersey
Member No.: 388



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 4 2006, 06:53 PM)
make such a stupid statement as the above.
*



QUOTE
100%


This post has been edited by The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A: Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Jun 5 2006, 12:15 AM
Post #35


Look for my paper in the Journal of Exp Social Psychology! (
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 6,119
Joined: 8-September 02
From: Rockville, MD
Member No.: 164



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?
*


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?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Baron Von Uberleet
post Jun 5 2006, 04:46 AM
Post #36


Rediska
*******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 3,022
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Montreal
Member No.: 14



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:


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





Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
libvertaruan
post Jun 5 2006, 07:37 AM
Post #37


my real name is Brunstgnägg
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 9,449
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Jawja
Member No.: 125



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.
*


lol, wangs.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Mr Beer
post Jun 5 2006, 10:50 AM
Post #38


A man of wit, refinement and beer.
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 16-August 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 101



QUOTE(Baron Von Uberleet @ Jun 5 2006, 04:46 AM)


Bigby's Clenched Fist!

/end D&D nerd mode
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
zaragosa
post Jun 5 2006, 07:44 PM
Post #39


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,038
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Jun 5 2006, 01:53 AM)
are being serious?
*


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
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Thor of the Orange Hammer
post Jun 10 2006, 02:18 PM
Post #40


Agusto the great Anti-Communist
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,151
Joined: 17-August 02
From: The Old Line State
Member No.: 110



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.

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jun 12 2006, 01:13 AM
Post #41


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,367
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



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.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Stimulant
post Jun 13 2006, 09:53 AM
Post #42


MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR MORDOR M
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,472
Joined: 10-December 02
Member No.: 210



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 ;)

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!
Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jun 13 2006, 03:13 PM
Post #43


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,367
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



?que, hombre?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post

2 Pages < 1 2
Reply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic

 


Lo-Fi Version
Time is now: 15th June 2006 - 04:33 AM