You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Do you feel the same way about the original Sokal hoax?
Even more so, to be honest. Social Text deliberately took a non-gatekeeper approach, relying exclusively on the notion that Sokal's merit was based in his expertise as a physicist. He abused that.
Agree that an entire field cannot be critiqued based on a stunt like this, but personally I find value in occasionally stirring the pot to get a good conversation going and more rigorously examining the basic ideas.
One can argue whether or not ST's non-gatekeeper strategy is useful or not. (I have been part of "non-gatekeeper"-run conferences and I find them kind of pointless, but that's a personal preference, not a rigorous epistemology.) But they're just one journal, not an entire field.
It also doesn't mean I have to love the field of "critical theory." I don't. I've read enough of it to have a sense of what it does (I did a subfield of my general exams in "critical history," so I'm not a total noob here). Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's not.
But I would never base my criticism on mere "stunts" or even, frankly, individual "scandals." Because fields are composed of more than those things. One does not dismiss all of physics just because N-rays turned out to be false and it took awhile to figure that out, either.
There are substantive criticisms that can be made of obscurantist fields of work in the academy. I don't think these kinds of cheap stunts provide that — they provide only cheap criticisms. And they waste a lot of people's time.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
