Utterly False. As Jim Heartfield pointed out, they deride them for "the misunderstanding and misapplication of scientific theories", and for making bogus claims about something the do not understand, not for lacking expertise in the theories.
> .... They (sokal and
>bricmont) then go on to use theory that they are not expert in. ...
Absolutely False. They do not "use theory" in making their criticisms.
> .... Admitting
>that they do not have expert knowledge in these theories does not excuse
>them. If expertise is a criterion that they expectother people to hew to,
>and they do not, it is a sign of the rankest hypocrisy. To say that it is
>a sign of intellectual integrity is no more than a bit of ad hoc fluffery.
It is a sign of your poor reading skills, or willingness to condemn without reading, that you have come to this conclusion.
>And really, all they've done is pull embarrassing quotations out of
>context.
False again.
Bill