I had no idea what the Bogdanov affair was, so I looked it up. See this site for a long exchange over it:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bogdanov1.htm
There are several interesting underlying issues. Let's say that the Bogdanov affair either was or wasn't a hoax.
The interesting point is that it doesn't make any difference! If it was a hoax, some established experts were duped. If it wasn't a hoax, other established experts were duped---duped into believing it was! In other words, that a hoax is a serious possibility that takes a group of theoretical types to figure out is an interesting issue in itself.
This was pointed out in Sokal's response, but he put a nice spin on it. The darker side isn't so encouraging, since it might imply there isn't going to be a tightening of standards---that the culture of this particular kind of science, like Enron and WorldCom, is so structurally ambiguous and flawed that setting and enforcing any consensus standard is impossible.
Anyone out there know enough to explain what KMS conditions are and why they are important? I know for sure I don't understand this stuff at all.
Chuck Grimes