views from these views. His reasoning is supported by nothing more than a "hazy patchwork of puns." When he does this, how is it that credential scientists can claim to have a complete understanding on scientific knowledge in their field? They accepted an article that was a total hoax and didn't realize it! This article was an impenetrable swamp of jargon and citations. At the same time this article was printed, Sokal published an article in Lingua Franca revealing that the article was a total hoax, and more or less was to show the intellectual absence in the field of those that had published it. There were many different reactions to the publishing of Sokal's essay. Some applauded him for putting many of the "too smart for their own good/think their so smart" scientists in their place. It was an ingenious act. Then there were those who frowned upon his actions in that he had no right to have such an article published. The following are some arguments that are opposing Sokal's "misuse of knowledge."A one sentence summary: "its bad enough, being in a physics department, seeing physicist compete to try to prove they're smarter than each other all the time; the last thing I need is to see them acting out this compulsion to prove that they are intellectual kings of the entire academy"(Weiner). True, but if there weren't people like Sokal, what would happen to the competitiveness of the field of study? How would you put some of these stuck up scientists in their place without pulling a stunt like Sokal's?First, Social Text is not a peer-reviewed journal. It has an editorial board and that's it. They should and do have egg on their face, but the people cheering this stunt should be more embarrassed by their gleeful willingness to stoop to deception to attempt to score points (Baez). Yes, the editors have egg on their face, as well they should. But the people applauding the article aren't stooping to a low level, they are con...
