Table of Contents
Background: The Battle of the Nerds
"Know that fools have written thousands of works and that many people advanced in age but not knowledge have wasted their time on the study of these books."- Maimonides.
Tensions between scientists and science critics, namely postmodernists and academics in science studies, have been building up for more than thirty-five years (3).
In brief, postmodernism is a reactionary movement against 'modernism'. The postmodernist philosophy questions modernist premises in art, architecture, literature and several other areas. The postmodernists also challenge the 20th century 'modern' belief in science by examining the scientific method and other aspects of the scientific process.(13)
Science studies, a diverse field which analyzes both the impact of science on society and the scientific processes themselves, is based on the "premise that scientific ideas are socially and culturally shaped -- that is, they are developed by particular people in particular times. Rather than viewing science as a pure kind of knowledge, they view science as a human activity affected by values and preferences." (11) One interesting area of science studies uses cases such as the Azande rain dance to show how cultural preconceptions can skew scientific conclusions. "One should not go into a study of the scientific laboratory or of the Azande village by assuming [as the Azande do], at the outset, that the practices one observes do lead to the truth, if done properly. But it is just as counterproductive to claim, at the outset, that the scientific laboratory will achieve results no more reliable than that of the Azande rain dance." (12) Once the vulnerability of science to culture is established, scholars go one step further and analyze the scientific process. In this way, science studies is a postmodern discipline.
Traditional scientists do not welcome either postmodernism's revolutionary attitude toward science or science studies' analysis and criticism. Science has proven itself to be productive and largely accurate, and while an axiom of science is that conclusions are fallible, scientists argue that scientific conclusions are independent of cultural influence. In this light, the scientific community views its modus operandi as adequate and not in need of scrutiny.
The dispute, which has been termed "The Science Wars", has broken down into primarily misinformed accusations between the two parties. Scientists misinterpret postmodernists as viewing the scientific world as no more true than any other social construct, no more objective than religion or ethics (2). In reality, postmodernists claim only that scientific theories and facts are determined by the opinion of the majority of scientists. They reason that in the real world science relates strongly to truth, albeit in an indirect manner.(8)
Postmodernists, driven to retaliation by the scientists, counter that scientists beleive they are above criticism, answering to no one (3). The ensuing academic battle of the nerds is entertaining, conjuring images of a elementary school fist fights.
Much speculation has gone into the real motivation behind The Science Wars. Recently, science has been taking some financial hits from the government, losing Supercollider sponsorship and support for "big science" in general. In addition, the job market for science is becoming very soft. So criticism from science studies was the hair that broke the camel's back, provoking an impassioned response from the scientific community despite the fact that science studies is a small, largely ignored social science. (11)
Alan Sokal, a physicist from NYU, became interested in the postmodernist positions in the early 1990s. After researching extensively, he came to the conclusion that a "decline in the standards of intellectual rigor" was occurring in the academic Left (2). To demonstrate his observation, he set up an experiment: Could he publish a nonsensical article in the leading postmodernist journal, Social Text, if it "a) sounded good and b) flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?" The answer was yes. (2)
Sokal and his experiment have been widely publicized, gaining stories and editorials in all the major newspapers and even an interview on National Public Radio. (requires RealAudio). In addition, volumes of commentary on the Sokal Affair have been written by both supporters and opponents of Sokal, including articles by such luminaries as Stanley Fish, an advocate of political correctness at Duke, and Steve Fuller, who has written a number of books on postmodern thought. (15) Sokal has also been the keynote speaker at several conferences dealing with the Science Wars recently. (16)
Sokal's hoax can be looked at in one of two ways, as proof that science studies is rotten to the core with mindless babble, or simply as a vehicle to stimulate further discussion on the subject. Although Sokal meant it as the former, it has generated a much more productive result, bringing the issue into the usually intellectually blind eye of the media.
Sokal claims his fallacious article is just another example of postmodernist literature -- impressive in its vocabulary but meaningless in its content. Sokal made it a point to exercise the obscure postmodernist vocabulary to its fullest. Words such as "transgressive", "interconnectedness", "self-referential", "epistemological", and "marginalized" (just a few interesting samples from the first two paragraphs) are perfect examples of the confusing vocabulary which make postmodernist articles so cryptic. (1) While the difficult vocabulary associated with postmodernist writing does not imply bad philosophy, it does make the field difficult to understand and evaluate.
Sokal's article showcased the lack of logic which he claims characterizes postmodernist thought. In his own words, "Nowhere in this is there anything resembling a logical sequence of thought; one finds only citations of authority, plays on words, strained analogies, and bald assertions." (2) On top of the unreasonable individual arguments, the overall thesis of the essay is ridiculous. The article relates quantum gravity, a possible explanation of gravity on the subatomic level, with politics and social science, concluding that science and mathematics should be rewritten to reflect the subjective nature of society. In doing this, the article somehow juxtaposes postmodern concepts and physics in a way which might make sense phrase by phrase but is laughable if it is examined on a larger scale. For example, one of Sokal's points is that the general theory of relativity is shown to be "postmodern" through a commentary by Jacques Derrida. In support, a quote from Derrida is included. (1)
"Derrida's perceptive reply went to the heart of classical general relativity: [notice the sarcasm] 'The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game ...'" (1)
This quote is flawed on an astounding number of levels. First, the quote is a good example of the type of writing that Sokal is attacking. It is abstract to the point of complete confusion on the reader's part, taking "a center" to mean something altogether different from its conventional definition. Second, the quote is completely out of context- so much that a glaring grammatical flaw is revealed in the repetition of "the very concept of the game." How could this sorry excuse for a quote be supporting Sokal's argument? And more importantly, why didn't the editors of Social Text realize how imperfect Sokal's whole essay was? Finally, to someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of general relativity, the quote seems to state that the speed of light, a constant, is variable. If nothing else, the editors should have found this suspicious and taken the article to someone with knowledge of physics who would have readily realized that every scientific concept discussed in the article is irrelevant, unproven or misrepresented.
Why did Social Text accept the article? Sokal claims that the academic Left will accept anything, no matter how illogical, as long as it flatters their preconceptions. Sokal's article came to the conclusion that "the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project." (1)(2) Sycophantism at its best. Social Text's response to Sokal unwittingly confirmed their susceptibility to flattery by admitting that they didn't respect the writing but published it anyway for reasons discussed below. (3)(5)
Social Text's blunder was probably caused in part by Sokal's heavy reliance on the works and concepts of the most celebrated postmodernist writers. Sokal's article was nothing more than a loosely related collection of prose from dozens of famous postmodernists, scientists and psychologists. The bibliography and additional notes cover 21 pages. It is difficult to discredit an article which relies completely on other accepted scholars' works, particularly if the references happen to be the best the field has to offer. Bashing such an article would involve bashing postmodernism in general.
Social Text's editors give the decision to publish a different slant. They claim that they did in fact see the fallacies involved, but felt that the article was interesting because it was "the earnest attempt of a professional scientist to seek some kind of affirmation from postmodernist philosophy for developments in his field." In answer to concerns over the poor editing and fallacious arguments so prominent in the piece, they pointed out that Sokal would not allow revisions to his composition. The result wasn't good enough to publish normally, but fit nicely in the Science Wars issue of Social Text. Ironically, Social Text claims that it abandoned postmodernist commentaries on the Science Wars years ago for some of the same reasons which Sokal cites in his biting criticisms. (3)
Even if Social Text did make a mistake in publishing the article, this in no way discredits cultural studies. This is the weak link in Sokal's experiment. He actually proved nothing in terms of science studies generally, only specifically. The whole of science studies, postmodernism and the academic Left does not rest on the shoulders of a single editor any more than science rests on the shoulders of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, the would-be inventors of cold fusion. (12)
It is possible that postmodernists are becoming too abstract or are wasting their time, but to state that a whole field of intelligent scholars are writing complete nonsense is ridiculous. In fact, it turns out that Sokal's major problem with postmodernism, that postmodernists think science is socially constructed, stems from a misunderstanding. Sokal's favorite saying is that he invites anyone who doesn't believe in the laws of nature to jump out his 21st story apartment window. (11) Of course, no sane person would state that the tried and true laws of nature are incorrect. Postmodernists simply recognize that scientific theories and facts are determined by the opinion of the majority of scientists, all of whom live in and are influenced by society. Science's canon still relates strongly to truth, but only in an indirect manner. For example, the current theory for the creation of the universe is the Big Bang because the majority of astronomers subscribe to this view. It is probably the truth, but as a scientific theory it is merely a complicated opinion poll. (8)
To cap off the Sokal-Social Text debate, one needs to put the whole thing in perspective. This latest nose-bleeding on both sides has brought no new issues to the decade-old debate. Every criticism and defense has been heard before. (3) What the debate has done is make Sokal a known in academia, reignite the fading controversy and bring the whole issue to the attention of the public.
Academic Left - Politically liberal academics, well represented in the social sciences.
Hermeneutics - The art or science of the interpretation of literature. (Webster's)
Postmodernism - A reactionary movement against 'modernism' which started in the early 1960s. The postmodernist philosophy questions modernist premises in art, architecture, literature and several other areas. It also questions the foundations of science, including the scientific method. One postmodernist statement is that science is a product of social interactions in the scientific community, not independent of human handling. An extended description of postmodernism follows:
"For many theorists occupying various positions on the political spectrum, the current historical moment signals less a need to come to grips with the new forms of knowledge, experiences, and conditions that constitute postmodernism than the necessity to write its obituary. The signs of exhaustion are in part measured by the fact that postmodernism has gripped two generations of intellectuals who have pondered endlessly over its meaning and implications as a `social condition and cultural movement' (Jencks 10). The `postmodern debate' has spurned little consensus and a great deal of confusion and animosity. The themes are, by now, well known: master narratives and traditions of knowledge grounded in first principles are spurned; philosophical principles of canonicity and the notion of the sacred have become suspect; epistemic certainty and the fixed boundaries of academic knowledge have been challenged by a `war on totality' and a disavowal of all-encompassing, single, world-views; rigid distinctions between high and low culture have been rejected by insistence that the products of the so-called mass culture, popular, and folk art forms are proper objects of study; the Enlightenment correspondence between history and progress and the modernist faith in rationality, science, and freedom have incurred a deep-rooted skepticism; the fixed and unified identity of the humanist subject has been replaced by a call for narrative space that is pluralized and fluid; and, finally, though far from complete, history is spurned as a unilinear process that moves the West progressively toward a final realization of freedom. While these and other issues have become central to the postmodern debate, they are connected through the challenges and provocations they provide to modernity's conception of history, agency, representation, culture, and the responsibility of intellectuals. The postmodern challenge constitutes not only a diverse body of cultural criticism, it must also be seen as a contextual discourse that has challenged specific disciplinary boundaries in such fields as literary studies, geography, education, architecture, feminism, performance art, anthropology, sociology, and many other areas. Given its broad theoretical reach, its political anarchism, and its challenge to `legislating' intellectuals, it is not surprising that there has been a growing movement on the part of diverse critics to distance themselves from postmodernism. (Henry A. Giroux 1-2) (13)
Science Studies - A diverse field which analyzes both the impact of science on society and the scientific processes themselves. (11) More detail in third paragraph of background.
Appendix B - A Layperson's View of Sokal's Article and Postmodernism
Saying that Social Text's editors are naive is unfair. I could easily see myself being duped despite two years of physics and an admittedly meager humanities education. The article is superbly written with extensive references to more books from more disciplines than anyone could hope to read and understand. Every time I thought I spotted a fallacy in the essay, I could easily have passed it off as my ignorance of the subject material. The erroneous physics statements were obscure for the most part, the psycology and postmodernist references even more so. I could only assume that Sokal knew what he was talking about.
To make matters worse, the philosophy he is attempting to ridicule, postmodernism, is ill-defined. Definitions of postmodernism tend to be longer than an encyclopedia article on Virgnia, and FAQ sheets attempting to describe it more adequately tend to be more on the order of the United States. One definition I liked can be found in the glossary. The long and short of it is, postmodernism is a tough subject.
One difficulty encountered with this topic is that it is very difficult to find third party commentary. Everyone involved has an opinion. One source stuck out, however. As part of the audience at a discussion with Alan Sokal, Robert Vienneau, a software engineer and phliosophy buff, got to see Sokal perform firsthand. Apparently, Sokal was completely out of his league, embarassing himself by failing to field answers to questions by graduate students from the audience. (16)
Appendix C - The Ethics Behind Sokal's Experiment
Sokal's experiment raises an ethical issue; journals have to keep faith in their authors's sincerity. An editor faced with an article should not have to determine whether a submission is a hoax before editing it. Because Sokal has violated the community of trust, other scientists and authors might be predjudiced against when attempting to publish their own legitimate papers. Therefore, it is unethical to submit a false paper to a journal for any reason.
Sokal's excuse is that he had no other way of getting the whole of the academic Left to pay attention to him. The Science Wars have been going for decades without a consensus. The article did spark more debate and perhaps has brought the two side closer to a compromise.
Appendix D - Sites of Interest
References (roughly in order of importance)