Second, yes, the pomos to whom I referred, "the pomos in question," are the ones taken up by S & B. How would *you* characterize the anti-Sokal side in this debate???
Third, your comment
"If you think Lacan is full of it, you should show that by taking on the body of his work, not mocking some badly appropriated scientific metaphors. The exercise proves nothing."
seems to demand a very restrictive mode of debate. Evidently you think that one must criticize the overall positions of one's opponents. E.g., one must show that Lacan is "full of it," and, if one doesn't, one is "silly." So if S & B do not take up "Lacan" as a whole, they supposedly "prove nothing."
Intellectual debate rarely works the way you seem to demand. And for good reason: intellectuals try to resolve things in debate, and they simply can't do so by criticizing each others' *positions*. When that occurs, the discussion degenerates into "your opinion" vs. "my opinion," nothing gets resolved, and the whole thing gets replayed ad infinitum. So instead, in order to resolve things, intellectual debate (when it is honest) is almost always a debate over *arguments*. One weakens the other position by demolishing one or more arguments that support it.
This Sokal has surely done. He has shown -- and this is perhaps his major point, to which he continually returns -- that the arguments brought forth in support of the social construction of reality are fatally flawed. As I noted, he has shown that the pomos in question confuse and conflate the social construction of knowledge with the social construction of reality.
The pomos have failed to defend their arguments. Indeed, they have hardly tried. They have preferred instead to backpedal without acknowledging that they are backpedalling, and especially they've tried to divert the discussion away from the TRUTH-VALUE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS and onto Sokal's motives, behavior, and philosophic position. In my own field, I've experienced and continue to experience very similar responses to my demolition of opponents' arguments, and so I really identify with Sokal and feel duty-bound to defend him despite my philosophic differences with him. What he is facing is repugnant and reprehensible, dishonest and dirty.
Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Home: Dept. of Social Sciences 60 W. 76th St., #4E Pace University New York, NY 10023 Pleasantville, NY 10570 (914) 773-3951 Andrew_Kliman at msn.com
"... the *practice* of philosophy is itself *theoretical.* It is the *critique* that measures the individual existence by the essence, the particular reality by the Idea." -- K.M.