So is this just correct? Are the writers covered just hacks? It seems pretty damning if true
So is this just correct? Are the writers covered just hacks? It seems pretty damning if true
So is this just correct? Are the writers covered just hacks? It seems pretty damning if true
Dunno, I saw this and download it, but again, I don't care. I don't really read any of that stuff.
Oh I'm checking out this, this is something that isn't exactly new.
Shit like this, it is ChatGPT stuff:
It is true that the Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin was influenced by Einstein's theory of relativity when he developed his concept of the chronotope.
Bakhtin saw time and space as intimately linked in the creation of meaning in literature and language, and he was inspired by Einstein's ideas about the relativity of time and space. Bakhtin's concept of the chronotope refers to the ways in which literary texts create meaning through the interplay of time and space.
According to Bakhtin, the chronotope is a fundamental element of literary form, and it refers to the way in which time and space are represented in a literary work. The chronotope is not simply a static backdrop, but an active force that shapes the meaning of the text and the way in which readers interpret it.
Bakhtin's concept of the chronotope has been influential in literary theory and has been used to analyze a wide range of literary texts, from epic poetry to contemporary novels. The concept has also been adapted and applied to other fields, including film studies and cultural studies.
I can't really explain it any further, because I haven't really studied it, but my professor was doing research on that. And he explained it to us once, and it is an interesting concept to analyze texts and discourse in general while in its context.
It's true and the Sokal affair was repeated again recently. I forget their names but they got some absurd articles about female bodybuilders and homosexual dogs published in journals, kek.
For all their cringe subculture, I appreciate that the Rationalists are making real attempts to normalize tactics that make it harder to get bullshit like this through
Ok but have you actually read the book or are you just remembering when you watched a YouTube video about the Sokal hoax?
I've read the book but it was years ago. I can post a picture of my copy with a post-it if you want.
Sokal was criticising the propensity of the humanities to misappropriate scientific jargon as well as currents within the philosophy of science that emphasized the idea of epistemological relativism and social constructivism (e.g. the "strong program"). He also ties this into the idea that those in positions of academic/editorial power use these things so as to service their own ideological biases which is bad for the humanities and has the potential to corrupt scientific pursuit. The book is almost 20 years old now but it's hard to argue he didn't have a very valid point and the success of his hoax underscored academia was on a dangerous path that would undermine it's both it's potential and credibility (this is literally how things played out).
All that said, I've studied Latour as well as Barnes/Bloor and their work gives insight into the process of science. However, their ideas were presented and carried forward as gospel, instead of descriptions it was meta-models, and this has lead to the fashionable nonsense (e.g. "her penis") which we see today.
The grievance studies affair.
Yeah, that's it. It was rape culture/gay shit at dog parks and bodybuilding but instead of muscle it's fat. They also claimed to stick things up people's asses to see if it would make them less homophobic. Fricking kek.
All Sokal really demonstrated was that the humanities and art are beyond the stemgay and it is not really proof of anything beyond different people having different priorities.
It was peak 90s "Science Wars" and the type of shit Sokal was criticising is responsible for the nonsense we see now.
The Sokal hoax was pretty funny at the time, but by the 1990s or so humanities academics aren't worth taking seriously enough to bother with hoaxing them.
>All Sokal really demonstrated was that the humanities and art are beyond the stemgay
Copium. Everyone in academia knows humanities are easier than physics, math, and theoretical CS, and this is manifest in GRE scores.
>Copium. Everyone in academia knows humanities are easier than physics, math, and theoretical CS, and this is manifest in GRE scores.
Difficulty is not the problem you oaf. Thousands of STEMgays can pump out acceptable humanities examination scores, but actual good work in humanities requires another level of excellence. Hence, why academia for the humanities itself is plagued by the incompetency of its own practitioners.
>These men ridicule what they do not understand. Deep down, they fear they're not smart enough to "get it."
>le sour grapes
He got published in those journals he is mocking.
i don't think Science should be throwing stones these days.
I think it's a waste of time to care about any of this garbage. Just stop caring.
You will never be above this petty shit. Everytime there is a thread about it, you will enter just to inform everyone you don't care.
There's a reason all the hoax papers are published through literal who low-impact journals that don't perform peer review.
This same shit happens in STEM journals, it's just less fun when someone publishes a randomly generated math paper like:
https://thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/102
versus shit like "Debunking the heteronormativity in marine life".
Some of the STEM hoax papers are pretty funny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholarly_publishing_stings)
because you'll see shit like someone submitting a paper just to try to get off a mailing list or "SARS-CoV-2 was Unexpectedly Deadlier than Push-scooters: Could Hydroxychloroquine be the Unique Solution?".
Anyways, hoax papers are hardly unique to the humanities.
#
>published through literal who low-impact journals
Social Text isn't a "literal who low-impact journal," moron. Frick, Fredric Jameson was on their editorial board at the time.
>"actually social text isn't literal who when compared to other literal who critical theory journals"
Amazing revelation anon.
Add it to the other 20+ hoaxes listed here where the editors didn't give a shit or the publishers just wanted money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholarly_publishing_stings
>In 2014, Australian computer scientist Peter Vamplew submitted a paper to the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology (IJACT) after being angered that the journal would not take his email off its mailing list. The article, in fact written a decade earlier by David Mazières and Eddie Kohler, was titled "Get me off your fricking mailing list" and consisted of the phrase "Get me off your fricking mailing list" being repeated for the entirety of the article body. The journal requested the researcher to "add some more recent references and do a bit of reformatting" saying that the article's "suitability for the journal was excellent". Despite this however, he was never taken off the mailing list.[6]
Kek
The authors don't challenge the author's actual body of work but just show how the authors misuse certain concepts from physics or mathematics.
It's advertised as "POMO DEBOONKED!!" to get sales but its otherwise pretty good at showing how certian pomo authors misuse certain maths/physics concepts for poor metaphor.
Even if they are hacks, they have affected reality more than the other cucks. Affecting reality if more fact even if based on idiocy. This book doesn't matter.
The Sokal hoax isn’t damning in itself. It’s just a window into a closed loop of basketweaving enthusiasts praising each other in a circlejerk because their “careers” depend on it. Useless humanities green lighting each others fluff papers that have nothing to say isn’t that big a deal. Not compared with the actual problem of irreproducible results in the hard science fields. Not compared to the routine p hacking and burying of studies that fail to show results in medicine. Even staple drugs like SSRI and the biochemical model for depression barely had any evidence to support it. Antidepressants are routinely just barely above placebo in efficacy and that’s with the statistical hacking and study cherry picking done.
Read The Emperors New Drugs
Read Kris i forskningsfrågan (Swedish only)
Read Replication Crisis
Only a handful of posters have said anything about the book, sasuga IQfy
It is a really niche book.
Why post in a thread about a book you didn’t read, especially with such confidence that your inane opinion about the Wikipedia article is relevant? If no one here has read the book they should let the thread die instead of using the Hoax as a totem to screech about how science or philosophy is bad actually. If you can’t at least do that you don’t have anything to offer intellectually, you (not you in particular but the posters in this thread in general) just enjoy sharing your opinions to feel smart
Because other threads were boring and the subject of the book is slightly interesting, but it is a niche of a niche. Do you realize that now?
It is an interesting subject, then he picks certain authors and talk about them. I didn't really bothered reading it.
And considering that you feel like talking about the book, it would make sense that you felt like talking about the subject of it. UNLESS YOU ARE SOME moron GETTING PAID TO SHILL THIS CRAP HERE. THEN YOU CAN FRICK OFF AND SUCK MY FRICKING DICK, butthole.
The book is so fricking old that shilling it wouldn't make any sense I'm just mad no one has anything really substantial to say. I guess I could drege up specific quotes if people wanted to argue about those. What Lacan says about topology is seemingly incredibly moronic
>le shrink can't do math
Those aren't really the worst problems with psychoanalysis.
>Why post in a thread about a book you didn't read, especially with such confidence...
welcome to IQfy. just wait until the board starts discussing a writer/thinker who you've actually studied. you'll realize that most of the people here don't read, they just regurgitate what they've heard somewhere else
Why shouldn't academics have a little fun with it.
>a few french theorists were caught red-handed misusing some fancy math words!
That's litterally it. This book hasn't debunked anything, and it doesn't pose any kind of threat to postmodern thought as a whole.
So when Lacan says "This torus really exists and is exactly the structure of the neurotic" That doesn't at all discredit him as an intellectual? It's not even that he's using math as an analogy, he is insisting that it is the thing itself
Can confirm. I'm neurotic and am literally a circle rotated about an axis
Not really. It just means that they are a bad mathematician. Lazy intellectual, sure. No one's reading Lacan for the topology.
But what does it say about an author of he uncritically grabs any cool-sounding metaphor from fields he doesn't understand and pretends to say something significant? Maybe he should just write modernist poetry with that modus operandi. Maybe it's all just association-driven gibberish.
>But what does it say about an author of he uncritically grabs any cool-sounding metaphor from fields he doesn't understand and pretends to say something significant?
It means they are a philosopher. There are a million ways to criticize pomo but if your main criticism is "sometimes they misuse math for cool sounding metaphors", then wait until you hear about popsci books and any piece of literature that uses the natural sciences as a rhetorical device.
No one dismisses Gravity's Rainbow because maybe pynchon misrepresents Godel's Theorem.
>if your main criticism is
It's not, just one of them.
>popsci books and any piece of literature that uses the natural sciences as a rhetorical device.
Those don't claim to contribute anything original to understanding the world. And if a popsci book uses scientific terms incorrectly it's just as valid a criticism.
>No one dismisses Gravity's Rainbow because maybe pynchon misrepresents Godel's Theorem.
So one should treat Lacan as fiction and set no higher expectations than more or less well-written entertainment? That's what I was driving at anyway
What's more nonintellectual, misusing math in philosophy or dismissing an author without even reading them?
>misusing math in philosophy
this, because dismissing an author on this point alone is completely appropriate
philosophy wasn't made for you, bugbrain
What the actual frick bro that guy's right
Yes, I'm somewhat into math and while it can be somewhat annoying, it can also help popularize those subjects.
Russians did the reverse with STEMtrash, Google about the Korchevatel. They did not chimp on proper STEM ppl though, because trash will publish trash regardless.
we knew that some french theorists were moronic, it doesn't discredit all of their work though. It does however place responsibility on modern cultural theorists not to write obfuscationist kaka
test
>Critique of 12 philosophers
>6 of them are Lacan Scholar
What did he mean by this?
>What did he mean by this?
Lacan was a highly influential charlatan.
>lacan
>charlatan
>that book
it's okay anon, thinking is hard and it isn't for everyone
>it's okay anon, "thinking" isn't for everyone
FTFY pseud.
What philosophers aren't psueds?