C. Doug writes:
"And are we also forced to accept the fact that scientists - and rather obscure ones at that, until one became a media star because of a schoolboy prank - writing on subjects they simply do not understand isn't at least a little disturbing?" and gets the point wrong, it seems to me. The Sokal approach seems not to be one of debunking the underlying arguments made in these social science works (those arguments being the things we assume he knows little about). What he seems to be doing is trying to stop the attempted creep of social science into hard science.
Social science is necessarily a science of argument whereas hard science, or more appropriately natural science, is one of experimentation and mathematics. Obviously there are overlaps, but the point is that science tests any doctrine or dogma (and there are many in science) against impartial nature while social science deals with subjects who have free will and who are, after all, doing the "science" on their own behavior in an inevitably self-referential and self-conscious way. Sokal seems to be doing exactly what a scientist should do when confronted with any theory that claims scientific validity: He picks it apart and finds ways to show any invalid construct in the theory that to be so. This is a purely destructive process and entirely appropriate to science. Science must be purely skeptical to rid itself of inevitable dogma. Science demands that scientists come up with contrary results when faced with any theory. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to undermine and unmask inevitable dogma. As long as Sokal is *not* being constructive, he is doing the right thing. He is ridding the social sciences of bogus claims of scientific, natural truth.
I find it continuously amazing that social scientists seem determined to claim their theories are like natural laws. What is wrong with argumentation? We are governed by laws that represent millions and millions of pages of precise and compelling argumentation. Personally, I find any social science claim of natural truth to be a red flag for sloppy or tautological reasoning.
peace