请老八来谈谈这个事件。
《知識的騙局》（Impostures Intellectuelles）的作者索可（Alan Sokal）可而頗富盛名，當年他以荒謬而任意的筆法，引用物理、數學的理論，寫了一篇文章投到美國的文化研究雜誌＜社會文本＞（Social Text）。然後索可自己跳出來說他全都是胡說八道，恰恰證明了這些文化研究學者在睜眼說瞎話，有如國王新衣的翻版。這件事引起學術界軒然大波。一年之後，索可在法國出版了這本《知識的騙局》，點名批判的這些人都是當代思想的大人物，包括拉崗、克莉斯提娃、伊莉嘉萊、布希亞、德勒茲等人，索可認為他們濫用科學的觀念與術語，將科學的理念完抽離其脈絡，絲毫無法提出正當的辯護理由，在非從事科學研究的讀者面前濫用科學術語，卻毫不考慮它的相關性與意義。這本書在某些知識圈引發了不小的風暴，被批評為「毫無幽默感的科學學究，喜歡修改情書中的文法錯誤。」但是，索可認為這些當代大學者有把風牛馬這些不相干的東西扯在一起的嫌疑，而受到大師光環迷感的讀者，竟也像國王新衣的旁觀者，盡管滿腹懷疑，卻也嘖嘖稱讚起國王的新衣是如何的美麗。
Jump to: navigation, search
The Sokal Affair was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of a then-non-peer-reviewed postmodern cultural studies journal called Social Text (published by Duke University). In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a pseudoscientific paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[1]
The paper, titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity"[2], was published in the Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue of Social Text, which had no peer review process, and so did not submit it for outside review. On the day of its publication, Sokal announced in another publication, Lingua Franca, that the article was a hoax, calling his paper "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense", which was "structured around the silliest quotations I could find about mathematics and physics" made by humanities academics.
The resulting debate focused on academic ethics, both in whether it was appropriate for Sokal to deliberately defraud an academic journal, and whether Social Text took appropriate precautions in publishing the paper.
- posted on 07/09/2007
以前隐约听说过此事，不知道细节。不能轻易相信权威，这倒是真的。自然科学界的学术论文也常常会有谬误，有的是错误，有的是作假。美国纽约的洛克非勒大学校长巴尔的摩就是因为手下人实验结果被控有作假嫌疑而下台（主动辞职）的。他的下台也表明在美国和西方科学界作假是很难瞒得过去的。
美国的教育，孩子们从小就被要求独立思考，不轻易相信任何人说的话，看问题至少从两面看（所谓“穿一穿人家的鞋“），使得美国普通人富于批判精神，同时也颇有区别事实和见解的能力，一般不太容易欺瞒。当然美国民众也很信任人，愿意给别人“怀疑的好处“，因此也容易上当。但是他们说，骗我一次，你是混蛋；骗我两次，我是混蛋。“精英“们要愚弄百姓，还得不断变花样才行。
社会科学界不了解。在美国，自然科学界无论是发表文章还是申请研究经费，基本都要通过同行审议 (anonymous peer review). 编辑收到稿件后，通常转交给两到三个同行，请他们独立写下书面意见。编辑们自己通常也是活跃在前沿的科学家。别人不知道，作为评审人，稿件到我手里时，通常我根本不看作者是谁，只看内容。第一看文章的假说是否新颖有趣，第二看实验设计是否合理可行，数据是否完整并经过统计学检验，第三看结论是否客观、合乎逻辑，是否考虑到了多种可能的解释，是否支持假说。
自然科学基本是实验科学，有比较客观的尺度。社会科学领域大概相当比较容易“忽悠“、“打造“。这个要请玛雅MM自己或其他高人评论。 - Re: 绉戝涓庝汉鏂� 绱㈠厠灏斾簨浠朵互鍙婂叾浠� Alan Sokalposted on 07/09/2007
（Just a random thought）Sokal Affair was a hoax from the view points of science by scientists, grounded by peer-reviewed. It was/is an New Age concept from the view point of a liberal mind... - Re: 绉戝涓庝汉鏂� 绱㈠厠灏斾簨浠朵互鍙婂叾浠� Alan Sokalposted on 07/10/2007
人文学科的论文怎样做同行审议？缺少甚至没有客观的标准怎么办？谁负责检查事实的真伪？完全诉诸于作者的职业道德大概行不通。但是话又说回来，名誉是作者的立身之本，毁坏自己的名誉不是自杀？ - posted on 07/10/2007
这个事件正好可以为“缺乏表达力的社会”作一个注释脚本，无论是词汇的缺少，还是词汇的专业化。“Incomprehensibility becomes a virtue; allusions, metaphors and puns substitute for evidence and logic.“ Sokal用那些在学术界的流行的唬人的大词作了一篇下面完全不知所云的文章，居然得到社会文本这样的杂志的发表，是可笑，孰不可笑？下面是Sokal的解释中的一段：
“Social Text's acceptance of my article exemplifies the intellectual arrogance of Theory -- meaning postmodernist literarytheory -- carried to its logical extreme. No wonder they didn't bother to consult a physicist. If all is discourse and ``text," then knowledge of the real world is superfluous; even physics becomes just another branch of Cultural Studies. If, moreover, all is rhetoric and ``language games," then internal logical consistency is superfluous too: a patina of theoretical sophistication serves equally well. Incomprehensibility becomes a virtue; allusions, metaphors and puns substitute for evidence and logic. My own article is, if anything, an extremely modest example of this well-established genre.”
玛雅 wrote:
请老八来谈谈这个事件。
《知識的騙局》（Impostures Intellectuelles）的作者索可（Alan Sokal）可而頗富盛名，當年他以荒謬而任意的筆法，引用物理、數學的理論，寫了一篇文章投到美國的文化研究雜誌＜社會文本＞（Social Text）。然後索可自己跳出來說他全都是胡說八道，恰恰證明了這些文化研究學者在睜眼說瞎話，有如國王新衣的翻版。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation