“Hoax Papers” Show the Lack of Scientific Method in Today’s Universities
As a student, I was taught about the Scientific Method and how it is used to determine whether or not the theory was true–or not. Scientists or other academics would pose a question, then test its validity using a number of experiments or other types of inquiry. The results of these experiments would then result in the theory being accepted or rejected. Today, with many of what I call “X-studies” in my book which are Women’s Studies, Race Studies, and other fields that have the word “studies” in their title, the Scientific Method and other rigorous scholarly processes are often ignored. Instead of these rigorous processes if the findings come to the “correct” ideological conclusion they are accepted. This type of sloppiness has enabled some questionable “facts” to be accepted by the general public as true, when in reality they have not been through a thorough testing process.
That’s just what Alan Sokol, a physics professor at New York University and University College London, was trying to prove during what became known as the “Sokal Affair.” Sokal wanted to test the idea that if an academic paper was submitted that leaned in the “proper” direction and used the jargon and flattery needed to impress certain progressives on the left, it would be accepted without going through any kind of vetting process. He theorized that if the author was considered an “expert” in the field it would be accepted without questioning and testing the claims made. That’s just what happened: he submitted a paper to “Social Text,” which was an academic journal for Cultural Studies, called "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", which basically argued that gravity was a social construct–an absurd idea.
“Progressive” Views Rewarded With Publication
Like Sokal thought, his article was accepted with no questioning of its scientific accuracy, simply because he, an “expert” , said it was so. This outrageous lack of testing is symbolic of the problems in today’s current education system: the viewpoints that are “progressive” are accepted and encouraged without proper testing and vetting. Of course, Sokal then told the world that his paper was a hoax, designed to show the flaws in this system. Sokal wrote
“The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy. The editors of Social Text liked my article because they liked its conclusion: that "the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project". They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion.”
Later, others decided to follow in Sokal’s footsteps. The academics at New Discourses argue that all of the papers that get published all have the same world view. For instance, Women’s Studies only has papers that show how wonderful, superior women are while showing how bad men are. Can you even imagine a paper that talks about something men can do better or some instance where men might be taken advantage of by women? Of course not.
Because of this the New Discourses people started with an ideological conclusion and simply worked backwards. Some examples of papers that they got published:
They wrote and successfully submitted some “Hoax Papers” of their own, including gems like:
“Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon” where they looked at dog behavior. Or this one, about sex toys:
“Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use.” And another about overweight bodybuilders:
“Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding”
Flaws in the Education System
Okay, so why did they do this? They wanted to point out the flaws in the system so we can all work to fix the problem. We need to show that only scholarship that has a rigorous process should have the credibility of being called scholarship. What’s a rigorous process? The best is the Scientific Method. However, within fields of study like psychology and sociology it is not always possible to use the scientific method, so other rigorous methods must be used.
I am appalled that Hoax Papers like these were published without using any such rigorous process. We need to hold those with the power to publish these ideas accountable for verifying the accuracy of what they write. Only by questioning and pushing back on blind acceptance of many of these new “facts” will we find the truth.