11 ms·

The Sokal Hoax

thriftwy 3y ago
The funnier thing that Quantum Gravity does seem to be a social construct. Some people are confident it exists even though it is impossible to observe (as of yet)
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  A better example is dark matter. Numerous people have staked their entire careers upon dark matter, so the emotions are real, more real than the logic they entertain to qualify positions on the matter. Pun intended.
  - thicknavyrain 3y ago
    Everyone always misses the corollary to this "groupthink is why we have dark matter" theory which is that academics are very heavily incentivized to try and overturn conventional dark matter because it would be an absolute career-maker to have a credible alternative (and get credit for upturning a widely accepted theory). And in fact lots of people have tried various MOND theories etc but the reason Lambda-CDM persists for so long is because it still fits the data the best.
    - psychoslave 3y ago
      what are MOND and lambda-CDM? I’m no specialist of the question, but from what I got, ok the standard model doesn’t match what we can observe in astronomic features, unless we suppose some untrackable heavy weight is there though not measurable with our contemporary tools. So the basic paths are, we admit there is indeed some entity like this, or we need a new model that can also encompass these observations without new object type.
      - sampo 3y ago
        > what are MOND and lambda-CDM? MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) is a minority (not mainstream) theory in physics, that maybe Newton's law of gravity doesn't work the same over galactic distances. After all, we have only tested the law in length scales smaller than our own solar system. You also have to know, that the observed rotation speeds of galaxies do not fit with estimated amount of visible stars (and their mass) in the galaxy. We basically can not explain why galaxies rotate at the speeds they do. MOND suggests that the shape of the gravity law changes, over very large distances. The mainstream explanation is Dark Matter: Galaxies have more mass than we can see, and that makes them rotate differently that what their number and mass of stars would suggest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics Lambda-Cold-Dark-Matter: Lambda is the name of the cosmological constant, cold dark matter is about the simplest possible model for the unseen dark matter: It is cold (no fast moving particles, meaning no particles like photons that move at relativistic speeds), dark (we cannot see it), and it is matter (provides gravity). This is the traditional, mainstream cosmological model in its simple form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
    - austin-cheney 3y ago
      Group think is not the problem. Certainty is. Dark matter arose because of gaps in the current particle theory. These gaps grow the further out we observe and become significant enough to disqualify gravity as a constant for the formation of galaxies. Dark matter provides an incomplete solution to these gaps just as dark energy is an incomplete stop gap to Einstein’s cosmological constant. The logic is as follows: * There are gaps in current models that otherwise invalidates math and disqualifies observed measures. * Dark matter/energy provide a partial solution that may or may not exist but are sufficient to performed qualified measures across observed space. * Therefore dark matter/energy provide utility value that for conducting measures that otherwise observationally contradict. * Therefore dark matter/energy must be because they are qualified as such by the math. This problem is syllogistic wherein a series of propositions are individually true and linked so therefore the conclusion of such linkage must be true, but it isn’t. In physics truths exist as proofs. The problem isn’t that dark matter exists or not, but that incomplete logic demands it must exist. Again, it is a confidence problem, that it must exist and anything to the contrary should be censored to hell. People have staked their entire professional reputations on this confidence built on logic, not observation. The actual physics problem that produces all this mess in the first place is observational limitation. Already the JWST is slowly peeling back some reliance on magic solutions allowing for alternate considerations and better math. Ultimately we will need to observe the universe from outside the solar system and it’s internal distortions.
      - Steuard 3y ago
        I don't quite understand the words you're using in your "the logic is as follows" list. (What are "gaps that otherwise invalidates math and disqualifies observed measures"? Really, what are "observed measures"? What does it mean to "performed qualified measures"? etc.) To a substantial extent, it kinda feels like what you're describing is literally the scientific method. We discover observations that are inconsistent with existing models, so we develop a new model that (within their realm of validity) correctly match the data, and when we continue to find that the new model successfully describes new observations our confidence in the model goes up (and eventually rises to the level of saying "this seems to be a correct description of reality"). Maybe if I understood the exact meaning of your words here, I'd understand how what you're talking about differs from that and what your concerns are. But as I've said elsewhere, I really don't see where this is a "confidence problem", and I've never had reason to believe that alternatives are "censored to hell". There are people who've built entire careers publishing papers studying MOND, after all. It just doesn't seem to work as well as dark matter (Lambda-CDM) to explain the copious data that we now have. And I'll definitely push back (again) against calling the case for dark matter "an observational limitation". These are quantitative, positive observations that demand some model to explain them. The specific quantitative amounts and distributions of dark matter necessary to explain galaxy rotation curves also turned out to be the same specific details necessary to explain gravitational lensing observations. As new observations have come in over the years, the case for dark matter has gotten stronger. (That's why it's become a dominant belief among experts.) So I genuinely don't have any idea what you're getting at with those comments.
  - psychoslave 3y ago
    Do you mean that the weight of their intangible emotions largely exceed the measurable observations they showcase in their scientific decisions? How unbearable!
  - Steuard 3y ago
    I don't mean this unkindly, but I am always so baffled when I see how common this take is. I mean, sure, say this about string theory (the field I was trained in): fine. I don't agree, but I see the point. But dark matter? You think we wanted this "weird particle or something very like it that we persistently can't find" situation? No! The reason that the overwhelming majority of cosmologists and astrophysicists pretty solidly believe that dark matter exists (after a whole lot of skepticism when it was first proposed) is that there is very strong evidence for it from at least three radically different sets of experimental data. [Patterns in how galaxies rotate (the original), gravitational lensing to locate and quantify mass in galaxy clusters (including cluster collisions like the "Bullet Cluster"), and the overall history of cosmological evolution.] And not only do all three lines of evidence indicate "dark matter exists", but as I understand it, they all independently indicate a consistent amount of dark matter (relative to the observable ordinary matter). People have tried to come up with modified theories that eliminate the need for dark matter for years and years (once they gave up suggesting the observations themselves might be faulty): it would be so much more satisfying, especially in light of our continued failure to find any sort of "stuff" that the dark matter might be made of. But as I understand it, every modification of basic theory that's so far been proposed to give a different explanation of one of those pieces of evidence has had nothing at all to say about the other two. And while maybe you could come up with a different theory modification to account for each line of evidence separately, at that point the coincidence starts to seem far less plausible even than "particle we can't find". ("Our otherwise solidly established theories are wrong in three very specific but unrelated ways, each tuned to match the effects we'd see from the exact same amount of dark matter.") And yet somehow, the notion has taken root among a whole bunch of non-experts that this is all somehow a conspiracy or a group delusion or a stubborn self-interested refusal to consider other answers. I'll never pretend that science is perfect or immune to groupthink! But for goodness sake, aim that skepticism in some direction where the observational evidence is less overwhelming. (And before you just pick another field to go after, maybe first think carefully about what factors led you to disagree with the experts on this one where it really, really wasn't justified.)
    - austin-cheney 3y ago
      The problem is not group think or conspiracies as you believe. I suspect you believe that must be the counter-position due to emotional investment and low empathy. The problem is misplaced confidence. The accuracy of opinions/predictions is almost always inversely proportional to the confidence of the claimant. If there were observational evidence then that would alone be a sufficient qualifier and overstated confidence wouldn’t be necessary. It’s bad logic that I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38203818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38203818
  - js8 3y ago
    Angela Collier did a nice video on YT debunking this, about why dark matter is not a theory, but rather a name for a discrepancy in observations. So it's not a social construct, the discrepancy is real.
    - mrob 3y ago
      If that's true it should be renamed to something less likely to mislead people into thinking it's a theory, e.g. "mass distribution anomaly".
- sgt101 3y ago
  Heh yup looks that way now, along with a priesthood protecting the discourse. Interesting that people like Neil Turock are using their position to right the ship now though.
- eigenket 3y ago
  I am very confident that quantum gravity "exists" in some sense. Here is the argument: In quantum physics labs all over the world we can put stuff in superpositions of being in different places. These objects are currently pretty small, but we can do it. Mostly this happens to electrons right now, but it has been demonstrated with "buckyball" molecules made of about 2000 atoms. These objects have mass, and when they're localised in a single position we have a nice description of what their mass does to space-time around them (General relativity). On the other hand, when such objects are in superpositions of being in different places they do something to space-time around them, but we have absolutely no clue what. "Quantum gravity" is just the "something" that they do. We don't know what they do, but they do something.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    How do we know they are doing something, and that something is different from localised buckyball behavior? I don't believe we can measure that.
    - eigenket 3y ago
      Them doing nothing (i.e. having no effect on spacetime at all when in superposition) would be a very wild thing to happen. I can't overstate how incredibly unexpected that would be. We believe (pretty strongly) that objects with mass distort space-time when they aren't in a superposition and superposition is a continuous thing. You can be in a superposition with a very high amplitude somewhere and an arbitrarily small amplitude somewhere else. If they suddenly have no impact on space-time when in superposition something very weird happens when you continuously shift from being localised to being in superposition. Similarly it doesn't really make sense for them to exhibit the same behaviour when in superposition of different positions to when they are not. Imagine we have an object with mass which can either be in position 1 or position 2, say the positions are a meter apart. Classically we have a description of space-time for the situation where the object is in position 1 and a different description of space-time for the situation where the object is in position 2. Now put the object in an equal superposition of positions 1 & 2. If the space-time is not "different from localised buckyball behavior" which of the two choices does it choose? What happens if it chooses one of them and we move some of the weight of the superposition to the other one?
n4r9 3y ago
Although this was an interesting exercise, I'm not sure if you can use it to make any strong claims about the rest of the journal (or field). They put the editors in a unique position of receiving a manuscript from known physicists, on a topic they did not know anything about. It doesn't seem right to extrapolate that the entire journal lacks intellectual rigour.
- qsort 3y ago
  They could have asked someone who did know. If you are the editor of a publication you have editorial responsibility of what gets published, you don't get to abdicate that responsibility because you don't feel like doing your homework. You cannot extrapolate to the field as a whole (at least not from this one example), but as far as the journal itself goes, it's damning evidence that they lacked the intellectual rigor required to talk about those topics (at least at that time, I have no idea if the journal still exists and has changed its ways).
- unmole 3y ago
  > They put the editors in a unique position of receiving a manuscript from known physicists, on a topic they did not know anything about. It doesn't seem right to extrapolate that the entire journal lacks intellectual rigour. The most obvious solution is to have a physist referee the paper. Publishing a paper they didn't understand and couldn't peer review most definitely suggests a lack of rigor.
  - esrauch 3y ago
    Even top journals in hard sciences sometimes publish papers that aren't actually peer reviewed based solely on the authors credentials. I once heard a National Academy member claim they get some number of papers automatically published into PNAS bypassing review as part of their position. Those papers aren't flagged as different than the others. On some level given the context of the journal them saying "these known scientists are saying a weird thing which is interesting, even if you ask three other peers in their field think this is entirely bogus and even if it's entirely bogus it's still interesting and basically on the authors reputation if it's really junk".
nathias 3y ago
I would argue his article was valid despite his intentions, philosophy does not concern itself with the scientifically correct opinion but explores ideas and their consequences and connections. So he poses a nonsense scientific thesis and explores it, this is the majority case of all past philosophy because scientific theses don't age well, but philosophical theses turn out to be less dependent on science, and a few abstractions removed from it.
- Maken 3y ago
  The point here was not if philosophy is scientifically correct, but if the journal editors could tell apart philosophy from purposely empty babble. This was not an attack on philosophy but on the journal editorial team.
  - nathias 3y ago
    but it isn't empty babble, if you read it in good faith (as you should any philosophical text)
bluescrn 3y ago
The more recent unofficial sequel to the Sokal Hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
- lproven 3y ago
  Excellent -- this was news to me. Thanks. There is a demonstrable reluctance in these comments to confront what the Sokal hoax demonstrated. There are generally "common wisdom" conclusions from this, that again, does not materially affect how people live their lives. * If a country has "democratic" in its name, it's not a democracy. * If an academic field has "science" in its name, it's not a science. Yes there are of course exceptions... but they are literally small ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic#Global_use_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic#Global_use... There are multiple areas of academia which role-play as rigorous scientific study, but in fact, are just people trading mumbo-jumbo which varies in how convincing it looks, and if you drill down, it's not just academia. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ray-dalio-rob-copeland-the-fund-book-excerpt.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ray-dalio-rob-copela... 100% of supplmentary, complementary, and alternative medicine is fake. Cf. https://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ https://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ But that doesn't stop it being a multi-billion-$CURRENCY industry. It is entirely fake, but people will pay to think they feel better. That is why I used those names in that order. S. C. A. M. Gambling does not make you money. It makes gambling companies money. But it's vast. Stock markets are, largely, gambling, driven by vague feelings, instincts, and herd impulse. I have worked there. They don't really know. It's hunches and friendships and hysteria. But the world runs on it.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    > If an academic field has "science" in its name, it's not a science. Yeah, suck it materials scientists, your discipline ain't real.
    - jowea 3y ago
      Also turns out half of HN are not scientists either.
trabant00 3y ago
To my completely untrained mind (in either physics or social studies) it is obvious social studies can not have the rigor of Newtonian physics simply by the difference in running experiments for each discipline. Think about how difficult it is to run, observe, constrict, isolate, etc experiments in social studies by comparison. Ethics limitations too. You really can't take a thousand babies, isolate them and run experiments to see what is a social construct and what is not.
- cdot2 3y ago
  If your research is not based in experimentation then on what foundation can you argue that you're searching for truth? The same foundation that any religion does?
  - promiscous 3y ago
    You can observe without experimentation. This is how we initially found evidence for cigarette smoking causing cancer. And then there's stuff like math, philosophy (including logic), and afaik. major parts of astronomy, which are not experimental, and yet produce knowledge.
- kergonath 3y ago
  > it is obvious social studies can not have the rigor of Newtonian physics simply by the difference in running experiments for each discipline. To my mind (trained in statistical Physics), you don’t have to abandon rigour when looking at complex systems. We can build models for things we don’t understand perfectly and we can rationalise experiments even if we don’t control everything (we rarely ever do). I think it’s a difference in degree rather than nature. The fact that many sociological studies are not reproducible does not mean that we cannot learn anything by observing and investigating correlations. It means that we need to be more serious while doing it. > You really can't take a thousand babies, isolate them and run experiments to see what is a social construct and what is not. You’re right. But this means that the emphasis moves from the experimental setup to the data analysis, and also that the results need to be discussed in terms of trends and likelihood more than verified facts. The field could still do away with p-hacking, data fabrication, and dodgy ideologies. There are plenty of physicists who publish rubbish because they set out to prove a pet theory and become victims of confirmation bias. That tendency is present everywhere, it is just stronger in fields where you cannot control as much the system you observe.
deng 3y ago
If you think this could not happen in physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair (Yes, I'm aware it's different from Sokal, in that the Bogdanov twins were convinced of the validity of their research.)
promiscous 3y ago
Its worth reading the editorial response[1] to the hoax. There's some context that tends to be ignored when this hoax is discussed online. For example, that the journal is non-refereed; that they deliberately publish non-scientific articles including fiction; and that the paper was initially rejected and only reconsidered for a special issue that sought to present the heterogeneous voices of the "science wars". [1] https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf
- bigbacaloa 3y ago
  All the editorial response demonstrates is that the editors understood so little about so many things that they could not understand the difference between an evident satire of a pseudoscientific text and something of substance. Any scientifically reader immediately realizes that the Sokal text was a joke (if someone doesn't, they don't meet my standard for "scientifically educated").
  - promiscous 3y ago
    That's not all the response demonstrates. More important is that it demonstrates that the journal is not representative of typical social scientific journals. This context is important because online commenters at times derive from the Sokal hoax general claims about the social sciences.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    They're not scientifically educated. They're not a scientific journal. They publish commentary, without judgment, including outright fiction. Ironically, I suspect that many of the same people criticizing them for accepting the paper would also accuse them of censorship if they'd rejected it. I've seen a great many people stand up for the rights of people to lie and insist that it was obligatory to carry that lie, even if they knew it was false.
3seashells 3y ago
The hoax proofed a lack of scientific on the side of the social sciences. As a result, projects who's funding was based upon publishing with the magazine should have to hand that funding to the creator of the hoax. Make science grant hunts real hunts, make hunting down fakes profitable for the scientific minded project.
kgwgk 3y ago
From an article of his published a few days ago: In my parody article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (Sokal 1996), I wrote as part of my conclusion: [P]ostmodern science provides a powerful refutation of the authoritarianism and elitism inherent in traditional science, as well as an empirical basis for a democratic approach to scientific work. For, as Bohr noted, “a complete elucidation of one and the same object may require diverse points of view which defy a unique description” – this is quite simply a fact about the world, much as the selfproclaimed empiricists of modernist science might prefer to deny it. In such a situation, how can a selfperpetuating secular priesthood of credentialed “scientists” purport to maintain a monopoly on the production of scientific knowledge? (Sokal 1996, 229) [...] Alas, PrescodWeinstein makes a similar bald leap at the beginning of her article – albeit this time, apparently, in all seriousness. Her claim is based on general relativity rather than quantum mechanics, but the structure of the logic is almost identical: Albert Einstein’s monumental contribution to our empirical understanding of gravity is rooted in the principle of covariance, which is the simple idea that there is no single objective frame of reference that is more objective than any other. All frames of reference, all observers, are equally competent and capable of observing the universal laws that underlie the workings of our physical universe. Yet the number of women in physics remains low, especially those of African descent. The gender imbalance between Black women and Black men is less severe than in many professions, but the disparity remains. ... Black women must, according to Einstein’s principle of covariance, have an equal claim to objectivity regardless of their simultaneously experiencing intersecting axes of oppression ... (PrescodWeinstein 2020, 422–423, references omitted) “White Empiricism” and “The Racialization of Epistemology in Physics”: A Critical Analysis https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/2/260 https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/2/260
- kergonath 3y ago
  Fucking hell! I don’t have much sympathy for Sokal but that article he’s criticising is something else. I had to check that it was not a hoax itself. I still cannot decide whether she’s more likely to be a troll or a useful idiot. Or how someone can apparently work in astrophysics whithout having a clue about relativity.
jjgreen 3y ago
It seems sad to me that someone who could have spent his time doing, you know, actual physics, instead has frittered away his life shooting social-scientists in a barrel. How many books on this now? Yeah yeah, we'll all agree that social scientists aren't proper scientists, now will you move on already?
- tgv 3y ago
  One of the problems is that we can't agree on what proper science is. Another one is that even if we do agree, we don't know how to do it. Yet another is one is that many people listen to social scientists and take their word. Economy is a pretty clear example, but there are also cases of statements by social scientists taken as authoritative by the general public, ranging all the way from mental health to (social) injustice.
samirillian 3y ago
It's well-known that the hard sciences are awash with fake papers, but apparently when a hard science journal gets fooled, it proves nothing. Honestly, I hate this. It's a stunt and bad manners. All the extenuating circumstances are known at this point. Philosophical inquiry is of course by its nature susceptible to charlatans, that's unavoidable.
beepbooptheory 3y ago
One fun thing to do is to prompt passages from the original article to ChatGPT and see it just run with it. It is a very strong Sokal Hoax generator.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
The follow up book is very much worth a read. It deconstruct so much BS in so called "great thinkers" works.
junon 3y ago
Reminds me of "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct", my favorite hoax paper. https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.... [pdf] And the breakdown of the hoax: https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/ https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social... An excerpt: > We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

The funnier thing that Quantum Gravity does seem to be a social construct. Some people are confident it exists even though it is impossible to observe (as of yet)

austin-cheney 3y ago
A better example is dark matter. Numerous people have staked their entire careers upon dark matter, so the emotions are real, more real than the logic they entertain to qualify positions on the matter. Pun intended.
- thicknavyrain 3y ago
  Everyone always misses the corollary to this "groupthink is why we have dark matter" theory which is that academics are very heavily incentivized to try and overturn conventional dark matter because it would be an absolute career-maker to have a credible alternative (and get credit for upturning a widely accepted theory). And in fact lots of people have tried various MOND theories etc but the reason Lambda-CDM persists for so long is because it still fits the data the best.
  - psychoslave 3y ago
    what are MOND and lambda-CDM? I’m no specialist of the question, but from what I got, ok the standard model doesn’t match what we can observe in astronomic features, unless we suppose some untrackable heavy weight is there though not measurable with our contemporary tools. So the basic paths are, we admit there is indeed some entity like this, or we need a new model that can also encompass these observations without new object type.
    - sampo 3y ago
      > what are MOND and lambda-CDM? MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) is a minority (not mainstream) theory in physics, that maybe Newton's law of gravity doesn't work the same over galactic distances. After all, we have only tested the law in length scales smaller than our own solar system. You also have to know, that the observed rotation speeds of galaxies do not fit with estimated amount of visible stars (and their mass) in the galaxy. We basically can not explain why galaxies rotate at the speeds they do. MOND suggests that the shape of the gravity law changes, over very large distances. The mainstream explanation is Dark Matter: Galaxies have more mass than we can see, and that makes them rotate differently that what their number and mass of stars would suggest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics Lambda-Cold-Dark-Matter: Lambda is the name of the cosmological constant, cold dark matter is about the simplest possible model for the unseen dark matter: It is cold (no fast moving particles, meaning no particles like photons that move at relativistic speeds), dark (we cannot see it), and it is matter (provides gravity). This is the traditional, mainstream cosmological model in its simple form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
  - austin-cheney 3y ago
    Group think is not the problem. Certainty is. Dark matter arose because of gaps in the current particle theory. These gaps grow the further out we observe and become significant enough to disqualify gravity as a constant for the formation of galaxies. Dark matter provides an incomplete solution to these gaps just as dark energy is an incomplete stop gap to Einstein’s cosmological constant. The logic is as follows: * There are gaps in current models that otherwise invalidates math and disqualifies observed measures. * Dark matter/energy provide a partial solution that may or may not exist but are sufficient to performed qualified measures across observed space. * Therefore dark matter/energy provide utility value that for conducting measures that otherwise observationally contradict. * Therefore dark matter/energy must be because they are qualified as such by the math. This problem is syllogistic wherein a series of propositions are individually true and linked so therefore the conclusion of such linkage must be true, but it isn’t. In physics truths exist as proofs. The problem isn’t that dark matter exists or not, but that incomplete logic demands it must exist. Again, it is a confidence problem, that it must exist and anything to the contrary should be censored to hell. People have staked their entire professional reputations on this confidence built on logic, not observation. The actual physics problem that produces all this mess in the first place is observational limitation. Already the JWST is slowly peeling back some reliance on magic solutions allowing for alternate considerations and better math. Ultimately we will need to observe the universe from outside the solar system and it’s internal distortions.
    - Steuard 3y ago
      I don't quite understand the words you're using in your "the logic is as follows" list. (What are "gaps that otherwise invalidates math and disqualifies observed measures"? Really, what are "observed measures"? What does it mean to "performed qualified measures"? etc.) To a substantial extent, it kinda feels like what you're describing is literally the scientific method. We discover observations that are inconsistent with existing models, so we develop a new model that (within their realm of validity) correctly match the data, and when we continue to find that the new model successfully describes new observations our confidence in the model goes up (and eventually rises to the level of saying "this seems to be a correct description of reality"). Maybe if I understood the exact meaning of your words here, I'd understand how what you're talking about differs from that and what your concerns are. But as I've said elsewhere, I really don't see where this is a "confidence problem", and I've never had reason to believe that alternatives are "censored to hell". There are people who've built entire careers publishing papers studying MOND, after all. It just doesn't seem to work as well as dark matter (Lambda-CDM) to explain the copious data that we now have. And I'll definitely push back (again) against calling the case for dark matter "an observational limitation". These are quantitative, positive observations that demand some model to explain them. The specific quantitative amounts and distributions of dark matter necessary to explain galaxy rotation curves also turned out to be the same specific details necessary to explain gravitational lensing observations. As new observations have come in over the years, the case for dark matter has gotten stronger. (That's why it's become a dominant belief among experts.) So I genuinely don't have any idea what you're getting at with those comments.
- psychoslave 3y ago
  Do you mean that the weight of their intangible emotions largely exceed the measurable observations they showcase in their scientific decisions? How unbearable!
- Steuard 3y ago
  I don't mean this unkindly, but I am always so baffled when I see how common this take is. I mean, sure, say this about string theory (the field I was trained in): fine. I don't agree, but I see the point. But dark matter? You think we wanted this "weird particle or something very like it that we persistently can't find" situation? No! The reason that the overwhelming majority of cosmologists and astrophysicists pretty solidly believe that dark matter exists (after a whole lot of skepticism when it was first proposed) is that there is very strong evidence for it from at least three radically different sets of experimental data. [Patterns in how galaxies rotate (the original), gravitational lensing to locate and quantify mass in galaxy clusters (including cluster collisions like the "Bullet Cluster"), and the overall history of cosmological evolution.] And not only do all three lines of evidence indicate "dark matter exists", but as I understand it, they all independently indicate a consistent amount of dark matter (relative to the observable ordinary matter). People have tried to come up with modified theories that eliminate the need for dark matter for years and years (once they gave up suggesting the observations themselves might be faulty): it would be so much more satisfying, especially in light of our continued failure to find any sort of "stuff" that the dark matter might be made of. But as I understand it, every modification of basic theory that's so far been proposed to give a different explanation of one of those pieces of evidence has had nothing at all to say about the other two. And while maybe you could come up with a different theory modification to account for each line of evidence separately, at that point the coincidence starts to seem far less plausible even than "particle we can't find". ("Our otherwise solidly established theories are wrong in three very specific but unrelated ways, each tuned to match the effects we'd see from the exact same amount of dark matter.") And yet somehow, the notion has taken root among a whole bunch of non-experts that this is all somehow a conspiracy or a group delusion or a stubborn self-interested refusal to consider other answers. I'll never pretend that science is perfect or immune to groupthink! But for goodness sake, aim that skepticism in some direction where the observational evidence is less overwhelming. (And before you just pick another field to go after, maybe first think carefully about what factors led you to disagree with the experts on this one where it really, really wasn't justified.)
  - austin-cheney 3y ago
    The problem is not group think or conspiracies as you believe. I suspect you believe that must be the counter-position due to emotional investment and low empathy. The problem is misplaced confidence. The accuracy of opinions/predictions is almost always inversely proportional to the confidence of the claimant. If there were observational evidence then that would alone be a sufficient qualifier and overstated confidence wouldn’t be necessary. It’s bad logic that I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38203818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38203818
- js8 3y ago
  Angela Collier did a nice video on YT debunking this, about why dark matter is not a theory, but rather a name for a discrepancy in observations. So it's not a social construct, the discrepancy is real.
  - mrob 3y ago
    If that's true it should be renamed to something less likely to mislead people into thinking it's a theory, e.g. "mass distribution anomaly".
sgt101 3y ago
Heh yup looks that way now, along with a priesthood protecting the discourse. Interesting that people like Neil Turock are using their position to right the ship now though.
eigenket 3y ago
I am very confident that quantum gravity "exists" in some sense. Here is the argument: In quantum physics labs all over the world we can put stuff in superpositions of being in different places. These objects are currently pretty small, but we can do it. Mostly this happens to electrons right now, but it has been demonstrated with "buckyball" molecules made of about 2000 atoms. These objects have mass, and when they're localised in a single position we have a nice description of what their mass does to space-time around them (General relativity). On the other hand, when such objects are in superpositions of being in different places they do something to space-time around them, but we have absolutely no clue what. "Quantum gravity" is just the "something" that they do. We don't know what they do, but they do something.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  How do we know they are doing something, and that something is different from localised buckyball behavior? I don't believe we can measure that.
  - eigenket 3y ago
    Them doing nothing (i.e. having no effect on spacetime at all when in superposition) would be a very wild thing to happen. I can't overstate how incredibly unexpected that would be. We believe (pretty strongly) that objects with mass distort space-time when they aren't in a superposition and superposition is a continuous thing. You can be in a superposition with a very high amplitude somewhere and an arbitrarily small amplitude somewhere else. If they suddenly have no impact on space-time when in superposition something very weird happens when you continuously shift from being localised to being in superposition. Similarly it doesn't really make sense for them to exhibit the same behaviour when in superposition of different positions to when they are not. Imagine we have an object with mass which can either be in position 1 or position 2, say the positions are a meter apart. Classically we have a description of space-time for the situation where the object is in position 1 and a different description of space-time for the situation where the object is in position 2. Now put the object in an equal superposition of positions 1 & 2. If the space-time is not "different from localised buckyball behavior" which of the two choices does it choose? What happens if it chooses one of them and we move some of the weight of the superposition to the other one?

n4r9 3y ago

Although this was an interesting exercise, I'm not sure if you can use it to make any strong claims about the rest of the journal (or field). They put the editors in a unique position of receiving a manuscript from known physicists, on a topic they did not know anything about. It doesn't seem right to extrapolate that the entire journal lacks intellectual rigour.

qsort 3y ago
They could have asked someone who did know. If you are the editor of a publication you have editorial responsibility of what gets published, you don't get to abdicate that responsibility because you don't feel like doing your homework. You cannot extrapolate to the field as a whole (at least not from this one example), but as far as the journal itself goes, it's damning evidence that they lacked the intellectual rigor required to talk about those topics (at least at that time, I have no idea if the journal still exists and has changed its ways).
unmole 3y ago
> They put the editors in a unique position of receiving a manuscript from known physicists, on a topic they did not know anything about. It doesn't seem right to extrapolate that the entire journal lacks intellectual rigour. The most obvious solution is to have a physist referee the paper. Publishing a paper they didn't understand and couldn't peer review most definitely suggests a lack of rigor.
- esrauch 3y ago
  Even top journals in hard sciences sometimes publish papers that aren't actually peer reviewed based solely on the authors credentials. I once heard a National Academy member claim they get some number of papers automatically published into PNAS bypassing review as part of their position. Those papers aren't flagged as different than the others. On some level given the context of the journal them saying "these known scientists are saying a weird thing which is interesting, even if you ask three other peers in their field think this is entirely bogus and even if it's entirely bogus it's still interesting and basically on the authors reputation if it's really junk".

nathias 3y ago

I would argue his article was valid despite his intentions, philosophy does not concern itself with the scientifically correct opinion but explores ideas and their consequences and connections. So he poses a nonsense scientific thesis and explores it, this is the majority case of all past philosophy because scientific theses don't age well, but philosophical theses turn out to be less dependent on science, and a few abstractions removed from it.

Maken 3y ago
The point here was not if philosophy is scientifically correct, but if the journal editors could tell apart philosophy from purposely empty babble. This was not an attack on philosophy but on the journal editorial team.
- nathias 3y ago
  but it isn't empty babble, if you read it in good faith (as you should any philosophical text)

bluescrn 3y ago

The more recent unofficial sequel to the Sokal Hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

lproven 3y ago
Excellent -- this was news to me. Thanks. There is a demonstrable reluctance in these comments to confront what the Sokal hoax demonstrated. There are generally "common wisdom" conclusions from this, that again, does not materially affect how people live their lives. * If a country has "democratic" in its name, it's not a democracy. * If an academic field has "science" in its name, it's not a science. Yes there are of course exceptions... but they are literally small ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic#Global_use_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic#Global_use... There are multiple areas of academia which role-play as rigorous scientific study, but in fact, are just people trading mumbo-jumbo which varies in how convincing it looks, and if you drill down, it's not just academia. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ray-dalio-rob-copeland-the-fund-book-excerpt.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ray-dalio-rob-copela... 100% of supplmentary, complementary, and alternative medicine is fake. Cf. https://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ https://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ But that doesn't stop it being a multi-billion-$CURRENCY industry. It is entirely fake, but people will pay to think they feel better. That is why I used those names in that order. S. C. A. M. Gambling does not make you money. It makes gambling companies money. But it's vast. Stock markets are, largely, gambling, driven by vague feelings, instincts, and herd impulse. I have worked there. They don't really know. It's hunches and friendships and hysteria. But the world runs on it.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  > If an academic field has "science" in its name, it's not a science. Yeah, suck it materials scientists, your discipline ain't real.
  - jowea 3y ago
    Also turns out half of HN are not scientists either.

trabant00 3y ago

To my completely untrained mind (in either physics or social studies) it is obvious social studies can not have the rigor of Newtonian physics simply by the difference in running experiments for each discipline. Think about how difficult it is to run, observe, constrict, isolate, etc experiments in social studies by comparison. Ethics limitations too. You really can't take a thousand babies, isolate them and run experiments to see what is a social construct and what is not.

cdot2 3y ago
If your research is not based in experimentation then on what foundation can you argue that you're searching for truth? The same foundation that any religion does?
- promiscous 3y ago
  You can observe without experimentation. This is how we initially found evidence for cigarette smoking causing cancer. And then there's stuff like math, philosophy (including logic), and afaik. major parts of astronomy, which are not experimental, and yet produce knowledge.
kergonath 3y ago
> it is obvious social studies can not have the rigor of Newtonian physics simply by the difference in running experiments for each discipline. To my mind (trained in statistical Physics), you don’t have to abandon rigour when looking at complex systems. We can build models for things we don’t understand perfectly and we can rationalise experiments even if we don’t control everything (we rarely ever do). I think it’s a difference in degree rather than nature. The fact that many sociological studies are not reproducible does not mean that we cannot learn anything by observing and investigating correlations. It means that we need to be more serious while doing it. > You really can't take a thousand babies, isolate them and run experiments to see what is a social construct and what is not. You’re right. But this means that the emphasis moves from the experimental setup to the data analysis, and also that the results need to be discussed in terms of trends and likelihood more than verified facts. The field could still do away with p-hacking, data fabrication, and dodgy ideologies. There are plenty of physicists who publish rubbish because they set out to prove a pet theory and become victims of confirmation bias. That tendency is present everywhere, it is just stronger in fields where you cannot control as much the system you observe.

deng 3y ago

If you think this could not happen in physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair (Yes, I'm aware it's different from Sokal, in that the Bogdanov twins were convinced of the validity of their research.)

promiscous 3y ago

Its worth reading the editorial response[1] to the hoax. There's some context that tends to be ignored when this hoax is discussed online. For example, that the journal is non-refereed; that they deliberately publish non-scientific articles including fiction; and that the paper was initially rejected and only reconsidered for a special issue that sought to present the heterogeneous voices of the "science wars". [1] https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf

bigbacaloa 3y ago
All the editorial response demonstrates is that the editors understood so little about so many things that they could not understand the difference between an evident satire of a pseudoscientific text and something of substance. Any scientifically reader immediately realizes that the Sokal text was a joke (if someone doesn't, they don't meet my standard for "scientifically educated").
- promiscous 3y ago
  That's not all the response demonstrates. More important is that it demonstrates that the journal is not representative of typical social scientific journals. This context is important because online commenters at times derive from the Sokal hoax general claims about the social sciences.
- jfengel 3y ago
  They're not scientifically educated. They're not a scientific journal. They publish commentary, without judgment, including outright fiction. Ironically, I suspect that many of the same people criticizing them for accepting the paper would also accuse them of censorship if they'd rejected it. I've seen a great many people stand up for the rights of people to lie and insist that it was obligatory to carry that lie, even if they knew it was false.

3seashells 3y ago

The hoax proofed a lack of scientific on the side of the social sciences. As a result, projects who's funding was based upon publishing with the magazine should have to hand that funding to the creator of the hoax. Make science grant hunts real hunts, make hunting down fakes profitable for the scientific minded project.

kgwgk 3y ago

From an article of his published a few days ago: In my parody article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (Sokal 1996), I wrote as part of my conclusion: [P]ostmodern science provides a powerful refutation of the authoritarianism and elitism inherent in traditional science, as well as an empirical basis for a democratic approach to scientific work. For, as Bohr noted, “a complete elucidation of one and the same object may require diverse points of view which defy a unique description” – this is quite simply a fact about the world, much as the selfproclaimed empiricists of modernist science might prefer to deny it. In such a situation, how can a selfperpetuating secular priesthood of credentialed “scientists” purport to maintain a monopoly on the production of scientific knowledge? (Sokal 1996, 229) [...] Alas, PrescodWeinstein makes a similar bald leap at the beginning of her article – albeit this time, apparently, in all seriousness. Her claim is based on general relativity rather than quantum mechanics, but the structure of the logic is almost identical: Albert Einstein’s monumental contribution to our empirical understanding of gravity is rooted in the principle of covariance, which is the simple idea that there is no single objective frame of reference that is more objective than any other. All frames of reference, all observers, are equally competent and capable of observing the universal laws that underlie the workings of our physical universe. Yet the number of women in physics remains low, especially those of African descent. The gender imbalance between Black women and Black men is less severe than in many professions, but the disparity remains. ... Black women must, according to Einstein’s principle of covariance, have an equal claim to objectivity regardless of their simultaneously experiencing intersecting axes of oppression ... (PrescodWeinstein 2020, 422–423, references omitted) “White Empiricism” and “The Racialization of Epistemology in Physics”: A Critical Analysis https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/2/260 https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/2/260

kergonath 3y ago
Fucking hell! I don’t have much sympathy for Sokal but that article he’s criticising is something else. I had to check that it was not a hoax itself. I still cannot decide whether she’s more likely to be a troll or a useful idiot. Or how someone can apparently work in astrophysics whithout having a clue about relativity.

jjgreen 3y ago

It seems sad to me that someone who could have spent his time doing, you know, actual physics, instead has frittered away his life shooting social-scientists in a barrel. How many books on this now? Yeah yeah, we'll all agree that social scientists aren't proper scientists, now will you move on already?

tgv 3y ago
One of the problems is that we can't agree on what proper science is. Another one is that even if we do agree, we don't know how to do it. Yet another is one is that many people listen to social scientists and take their word. Economy is a pretty clear example, but there are also cases of statements by social scientists taken as authoritative by the general public, ranging all the way from mental health to (social) injustice.

samirillian 3y ago

It's well-known that the hard sciences are awash with fake papers, but apparently when a hard science journal gets fooled, it proves nothing. Honestly, I hate this. It's a stunt and bad manners. All the extenuating circumstances are known at this point. Philosophical inquiry is of course by its nature susceptible to charlatans, that's unavoidable.

beepbooptheory 3y ago

One fun thing to do is to prompt passages from the original article to ChatGPT and see it just run with it. It is a very strong Sokal Hoax generator.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

The follow up book is very much worth a read. It deconstruct so much BS in so called "great thinkers" works.

junon 3y ago

Reminds me of "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct", my favorite hoax paper. https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.... [pdf] And the breakdown of the hoax: https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/ https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social... An excerpt: > We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.