Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics and academic integrity
Ethics and academic integrity
Ethics and academic integrity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics and academic integrity
The Sokal Hoax In Fall of 1994, New York University theoretical physicist, Alan Sokal, submitted an essay to Social Text, the leading journal in the field of cultural studies. This essay, entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," pretended to be a scholarly article about the "postmodern" philosophical and political implications of the twentieth century physical theories. However, as Sokal later revealed in the journal Lingua Franca, his essay was merely a mixture of deliberately concocted blunder, stitched together so as to look good and to flatter the conceptual views of the editors. After review by five members of Social Text's editorial board, Sokal's "cartoon" was accepted for publication as a serious piece of scholarship. It appeared in April 1996, in a special double issue of the journal devoted to rebutting the charge that cultural studies critiques of science tend to be riddled with incompetence (Boghossian). Sokal's essay seems to show a few important things. The views about the concepts of truth and evidence have gained widespread acceptance within the present day academy. This has had precisely the sort of harmful consequence on the standards of scholarship and intelligent responsibility. Neither of the above two claims needs to reflect a particular political point of view (Boghossian). Sokal starts off by establishing his postmodernist credentials. He ridicules scientists for continuing to cling to the post-teachings of authority over the Western intellectual outlook. There is a way that human beings can obtain reliable knowledge of these properties. He states that this belief has already been thoroughly undermined by the theories of gener... ... middle of paper ... ... wrong in getting it published. I, for one, am glad he did. He must be very intelligent to slide a hoax like his by a so-called group of educated scientists. Sokal goes out of his way to leave telltale clues as to his true intent - the conclusion is inescapable that the editors of Social Text didn't know what many of the sentences in Sokal's essay actually meant; and that they just didn't care (Boghossian). So overall, Sokal's hoax seems to be a brilliant piece of work. Hopefully the editors of many publications have learned something from his "performance." Bibliography: Works Cited Boghossian, Paul. From the Times Literary Supplement, Commentary. December 13, 1996, pp.14-15 http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~bweiner/sokal.html#post1 http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/boghossian/:
The essay starts off by stating, “One could say that the dominant scientific world-view going into the 16th century was not all that “scientific” in the modern sense of the
... a false belief, rather than a sure fire finding. Overall writers can be misleading society, which causes them to be a potentially destructive person of society.
This discussion focuses on two issues: the relationship between evidence and hypotheses; and, the role of "contextual" values in inquiry. Longino contrasts contextual values with constitutive values. The latter, the "values generated from an understanding of the goals of scientific inquiry," "are the source of the rules determining what constitutes acceptable scientific practice or scientific method" (L1990, 4). That these values influence inquiry is not a problem. But the former, "personal, social, and cultural values," are thought to threaten the integrity of scientific inquiry (L1990, 4-5).
...s passage he references “scientists” as the information source, but does not cite any specific people or research.
they are not the only authors we study, at least at my school. He deliberately,
He was not a crank. He was not overly skeptical. He was not bound to pseudoscience. He was certainly not bound to societal expectations. However, he was—in the simplest term that can be used—odd. Historically, many of mankind 's greatest thinkers have been so. Nikola Tesla is widely believed to have suffered from severe obsessive compulsive disorder, which led to behaviors such as circling a city block many times before entering a building.1 Isaac Newton was riddled with mental insecurities to the point of a five-day long sleepless breakdown in 1693.2 Pythagoras had a sect of devout followers, and amongst the restrictions placed upon them was a ban on the consumption of beans.3 He—Steve Jobs—certainly had his own quirks. However, his quirks
Brown, Earl B., Jr. "Kosinski's Modern Proposal: The Problem of Satire in the Mid-Twentieth Century." Ebscohost. N.p., 1980. Web. Mar.-Apr. 2014.
Had the audience been less educated, I’m sure the language would have been more watered down and taken a more visual form. In terms of grammar and spelling there were no mistakes. Many of the words were quite lengthy and obtuse and there was not much filler material. With scholarly works such as these they go through a series of edits in order to produce the most credible and error free submission. Many of the sentences are complex, making fluid reading of this piece more difficult than other prose. The language itself is somewhat basic, there aren’t very many descriptive terms or conceptual language. In a generation that grew up with Bill Nye the Science guy, we aren’t used to viewing science in a pure and boring form. With many branches of science there are no violent explosions or chance of a breakthrough discovery. A lot of science is just filling in the blanks for phenomenon that we already understand. This language confirms that sentiment. The topic being discussed, while important in the realm of pro social development, becomes very mundane when explored with ink. Throughout this work there is no plead to ethos, it
“”Hidden Intellectualism” brings up the story of Marilyn Monroe and Joe DeMaggio. Although the two were married, they eventually divorce and Monroe marries author and playwright, Arthur Miller. The author uses this allusion as “the symbolic triumph of geek over jock”. Another allusion in the article is the mention of Elvis Presley supporting Adlai over Ike in the presidential election on 1956. He says “I don’t dig the intellectual bit”,“but I’m telling you, man, he knows his stuff.” These examples could be used as strong evidence that the author’s opinion is correct or may be used as a source to create credibility. Many readers would consider the use of history and facts as proof that the author did research and knows his
As time has progressed, a divide has been created between scientists and those who strongly...
“Science is not a body of facts. Science is a state of mind” (Angier 490). While both essays, “The Canon” by Natalie Angier, and “Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse” by Thomas W. Martin, discuss the fact that science is practiced through actions and is not a set of facts to be learned; these two articles approach the topic differently. By using different rhetorical modes and having alternate styles, these two articles appear different; but they contain the same foundation of science and make similar points. Even though the article’s main points have similarities, the essays also contain many differences through their rhetorical mode, approach, and appeals.
"Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences." A Postmodern Reader. New York: State U of New York, 1993. 223-42. Print.
I feel John Mak is taking a good scientific approach to most of his work. In contrast not the true scientific research is there that he needs. He shows us by saying “And in case after case after case, I've been impressed with the consistency of the story, the sincerity with which people tell their stories, the power of feelings connected with this, the self-doubt -- all the appropriate responses that these people have to their experiences.” I know this is not true science the bare facts aren’t there.
In the ancient and medieval ages of Europe, people were trying to find out the truth about the nature by using only observation and reflecting on it. They did not use scientific methods, indeed it cannot be called as science; it was ‘natural philosophy’. However, through the enlightenment this began to change and it was converted to ‘science’ by creating a new methodology and reflection on nature. While this process, science that existed due to the enlightenment gradually differed from natural philosophy in terms of its relationship to religion. Briefly, natural philosophy which means the way of thinking about nature before the enlightenment was different from modern science of today in terms of the relationship to religion, it was completing the religion in contrast of modern science.