Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:21:03 -0500
Subject: Re: SOKAL AND THE STAR SYSTEM


Scott:

>          Somebody posted  an  article  here  claiming  that  Alan  Sokal's
>          article was published in SOCIAL TEXT because he is  a "star," and
>          nobody questions the work of a "star."  This is, simply, absurd.
>          Sokal  is  not  a  star;  and  I   am  told  that  NYU's  physics
>          depopartment, where Sokal teaches, is not considered particularly
>          strong.  The program headed  by  SOCIAL TEXT editor Andrew  Ross,
>          also of  NYU,  is another story:  the  big bucks were located for
>          him, and he genuinely is a "star" --  a celebrity of the cultural
>          studies scene.  Guess which one is most likely to  get whacked by
>          the stockholders.

I haven't even heard of him and we're in the same field. Even if he was a
star, it would be irrelevant, since social scientists would be only more
likely to gun for a scientific star, not less. It blows my mind that people
are saying what he did is unethical, especially since it's the same goddamn
people who are always talking about the social relevance of academic study,
how scientists can't arrogate to themselves the right to consider their
work in hermetic isolation, blah, blah, blah. Even if, in doing what he
did, Sokal violated some of the precious rules of academia, he was clearly
doing it to serve a larger social good. Guys like Aronowitz should at least
read the crap they write themselves.

Rahul




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---