The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies

[Adam Jensen]

It was only published because they paid to get it published.

Well then I take back what I said. It's not trolling if you pay for it.

It's not a art.

[sarahtasher]

One, this article is ridiculous and there are serious lack of rigor in the social sciences.

Two, people in the USA can get ''diplomas'' in ''biology'' from saying that God ripped a rib from Adam. And not even in Patriot Bible College, in ACCREDITATED universités. (IE, I distinctively recalls someone often quoted from the opposite side of gender studies about having straw in the eyes...)

Three, I know that the usual suspects have a sort of religious obligation to scream that anything that is not STEM is ''nut scientifukal'' (FTR, I'm in an accounting related job, not exactly STEM but not ''basket weaving'' either), but history and sociology are at least as much ''science'' as a computer science degree from De Vry.

[Adam Jensen]

Three, I know that the usual suspects have a sort of religious obligation to scream that anything that is not STEM is ''nut scientifukal'' (FTR, I'm in an accounting related job, not exactly STEM but not ''basket weaving'' either), but history and sociology are at least as much ''science'' as a computer science degree from De Vry.

I definitely agree with this. I don't think science is so rigidly defined as being only in certain fields. I think so long as you apply the principles of the scientific method, to use empirical evidence, hypothesis and experimentation, your field is a science. And yes, that can indeed include history.

Maybe some fields are more scientifically minded than others. I'm just saying that science might not be as black and white as people take it for.

[Garnier Fructis]

Three, I know that the usual suspects have a sort of religious obligation to scream that anything that is not STEM is ''nut scientifukal'' (FTR, I'm in an accounting related job, not exactly STEM but not ''basket weaving'' either), but history and sociology are at least as much ''science'' as a computer science degree from De Vry.

De Vry is a shitty diploma mill, and it's bad to the point where some graduates omit the fact that they have degrees from De Vry. So I can't actually tell if you're defending or insulting history and sociology with that last sentence.

[Zethras]

Credit to the writer once I started reading I read it all. It was like reading the lines between a train wreck but I found it hilariously entertaining.... xD

That sir, is called a dumpster fire.

[Super Kami Dende]

Maybe we should stop feeling our Penis' and ask how our Penis' feel.

[sarahtasher]

De Vry is a shitty diploma mill, and it's bad to the point where some graduates omit the fact that they have degrees from De Vry. So I can't actually tell if you're defending or insulting history and sociology with that last sentence.

I strongly suspect most people basing social sciences are not rocket scientists.

[Hooked]

Get ready for a convention of states, altering the constitution. The far lefts accepted ideas are so far out there, yet the left continues to run with these ridiculous ideas as their mainstream goals. The republicans only need about a couple more states to declare a convention of states. That will alter the republic and make us more conservative.

[Slybak]

Is the journal that published it at all creditworthy btw (I cannot even find it ranked)? I am not excusing this, but it might simply be a junk journal that only exists for citations circlejerks.

It isn't. Cogent is basically a P.O. Box and a checking account. The "hoaxers" effectively paid a few hundred bucks to prove a fake point to a bunch of rubes who don't know any better. I could wipe my ass with a piece of printer paper and have Cogent publish it under the title "The Effects of High Energy Leptons on Bowel Movement Coherence," and it would no more invalidate the entire field of particle physics as this nonsense invalidates gender studies.

- - - Updated - - -

I strongly suspect most people basing social sciences are not rocket scientists.

Ironically enough, I recall a talk given by Lawrence Krauss in which he said he got into cosmology and theoretical physics because social science was too complicated.

[Forogil]

I'm going to ignore the parts you talk about how experiments in social sciences are not as accurate as physics ones, as that is not what argued and is irrelevant to the topic.

Those part was exactly what was argued as well - and is highly relevant for "true experiment" as well.

But about the true experiment part, you cannot measure observables by the absolute, hence you cannot declare full control over a system.

From many sources including Wikipedia and Psychology dictionary: "The independent variable is manipulated by the experimenter, and the dependent variable is measured. The signifying characteristic of a true experiment is that it randomly allocates the subjects to neutralize experimenter bias, and ensures, over a large number of iterations of the experiment, that it controls for all confounding factors."

And the term is generally only used in social sciences.

None of those sources talks about your idea of "absolute measurements" (assumedly meaning fully exact ones).

Medical sciences also care about this - but go one step further with double-blind experiments; which often is impossible in many psychology experiments (the experimenter must know what they are doing).

Measurement of physics don't generally care about "experimenter bias" (for the experiment - but generally care about it for analysis) - and since particles are identical and without any extra history it is so simple to get it right that it is not widely discussed. Additionally many physics experiments are not done as a "true experiment" - but by measuring the impact of the change on the same particle - or just measuring.

- - - Updated - - -

Three, I know that the usual suspects have a sort of religious obligation to scream that anything that is not STEM is ''nut scientifukal'' (FTR, I'm in an accounting related job, not exactly STEM but not ''basket weaving'' either), but history and sociology are at least as much ''science'' as a computer science degree from De Vry.

One thing I have learned is to be suspicious of any field that has "science" in the name (yes, including computer science) - or "applied" in the course title.

[HumbleDuck]

Those part was exactly what was argued as well - and is highly relevant for "true experiment" as well.


From many sources including Wikipedia and Psychology dictionary: "The independent variable is manipulated by the experimenter, and the dependent variable is measured. The signifying characteristic of a true experiment is that it randomly allocates the subjects to neutralize experimenter bias, and ensures, over a large number of iterations of the experiment, that it controls for all confounding factors."

And the term is generally only used in social sciences.

None of those sources talks about your idea of "absolute measurements" (assumedly meaning fully exact ones).

Medical sciences also care about this - but go one step further with double-blind experiments; which often is impossible in many psychology experiments (the experimenter must know what they are doing).

Measurement of physics don't generally care about "experimenter bias" (for the experiment - but generally care about it for analysis) - and since particles are identical and without any extra history it is so simple to get it right that it is not widely discussed. Additionally many physics experiments are not done as a "true experiment" - but by measuring the impact of the change on the same particle - or just measuring.

- - - Updated - - -


One thing I have learned is to be suspicious of any field that has "science" in the name (yes, including computer science) - or "applied" in the course title.

First, those parts re completely irrelevant to the discussion as have been introduced by you as an attempt of red herring.
Second, I don't understand what is so hard for you to understand about this.f rankly I'm starting to think you are just trolling.
As I said numerous times here, you can't have a truly independent variable, because you are indeed limited by the very nature of the world. You can't measure any of the variables independently and that's why I say you cannot conduct a true experiment.

[Forogil]

First, those parts re completely irrelevant to the discussion as have been introduced by you as an attempt of red herring.

You claim that discussing the scientific value of social sciences is irrelevant to the discussion of social sciences as science, after someone claimed they weren't actual sciences - due to lack of true experiments?

Followed by your repeated red herrings about "true experiment" - that you haven't defined and repeatedly change.

Second, I don't understand what is so hard for you to understand about this.f rankly I'm starting to think you are just trolling.
As I said numerous times here, you can't have a truly independent variable, because you are indeed limited by the very nature of the world. You can't measure any of the variables independently and that's why I say you cannot conduct a true experiment.

You have said many things - but they are neither coherent nor relevant to the physical world.

The facts are that in physics you can measure variables accurately and independently enough to get 99.99999% consistency between experiment and theory. To say that it is not "truly independent" is just a red herring - especially since no "true experiment" in social sciences can be made with that anything resembling that accuracy (we don't have enough people to reduce the statistical error).

To believe that quantum physics means that everything is connected in some way and you thus cannot make "true experiments" of physics after the 1930s is just misunderstanding of quantum theory, the history of science, and true experiments.

[Flutterguy]

Can my penis be taxed?

[HumbleDuck]

You claim that discussing the scientific value of social sciences is irrelevant to the discussion of social sciences as science, after someone claimed they weren't actual sciences - due to lack of true experiments?

Followed by your repeated red herrings about "true experiment" - that you haven't defined and repeatedly change.

You have said many things - but they are neither coherent nor relevant to the physical world.

The facts are that in physics you can measure variables accurately and independently enough to get 99.99999% consistency between experiment and theory. To say that it is not "truly independent" is just a red herring - especially since no "true experiment" in social sciences can be made with that anything resembling that accuracy (we don't have enough people to reduce the statistical error).

To believe that quantum physics means that everything is connected in some way and you thus cannot make "true experiments" of physics after the 1930s is just misunderstanding of quantum theory, the history of science, and true experiments.

- Ok, my discussion with you was not on scientific value to social sciences studies, and was about the true experiments in the first place ( check your own comment on my post).
- I never claimed experiments have all of a sudden become less accurate since the 30s, my comment on that was referring to the fact that most theories put forward since then ( almost all of them in HEP) can't be prooven by experiments at this time, so if we accept the definition the guy I was replying to gave , most of physics is pseudoscience then.
- there is some form of dependency between observables in all modern theories, from QM to QFT, LQG and string theory.
- do you even know what red herring means?

[Forogil]

- Ok, my discussion with you was not on scientific value to social sciences studies, and was about the true experiments in the first place ( check your own comment on my post).

Let's look at why you started discussing "true experiment":

Social sciences are by definition science

That is the origin of this - something having "science" in the name does not by definition become a "science".

- I never claimed experiments have all of a sudden become less accurate since the 30s, my comment on that was referring to the fact that most theories put forward since then ( almost all of them in HEP) can't be prooven by experiments at this time, so if we accept the definition the guy I was replying to gave , most of physics is pseudoscience then.

You don't seem to remember what you wrote:

If we take your approach physics has been a pseudoscience since the 30s.

Most of physics since the 1930s have not been high-energy physics - and most of the high-energy physics have been verified with very high accuracy. The high-energy non-tested parts started primarily in the 1980s or 1990s with string theory.

There are also other theories after the 1930s that cannot be tested in a "true experiment" - just measured - like plate tectonics and cosmology (big bang, inflation and all that).

- there is some form of dependency between observables in all modern theories, from QM to QFT, LQG and string theory.

That observables are dependent in theory does not stop people from doing experiments - and confirming that dependency.

- do you even know what red herring means?

Yes. E.g. trying to introduce statements about not "absolutely measurable" - "dependency" in some physics to misdirect the attention from the problems of e.g. repeatability in social sciences (hence the need for "true experiment" in social sciences - which is so easily fulfilled in particle physics that it is not discussed).

- - - Updated - - -

Can my penis be taxed?

Probably - but don't try find clever ways of evading that tax :-)

[sarahtasher]

Get ready for a convention of states, altering the constitution. The far lefts accepted ideas are so far out there, yet the left continues to run with these ridiculous ideas as their mainstream goals. The republicans only need about a couple more states to declare a convention of states. That will alter the republic and make us more conservative.

So CSA 2.0 because of....?

The CSA that invented ''drapteromania'' and burnt copies of Uncle Tom Cabin.

[HumbleDuck]

Let's look at why you started discussing "true experiment":

That is the origin of this - something having "science" in the name does not by definition become a "science".


You don't seem to remember what you wrote:

Most of physics since the 1930s have not been high-energy physics - and most of the high-energy physics have been verified with very high accuracy. The high-energy non-tested parts started primarily in the 1980s or 1990s with string theory.

There are also other theories after the 1930s that cannot be tested in a "true experiment" - just measured - like plate tectonics and cosmology (big bang, inflation and all that).


That observables are dependent in theory does not stop people from doing experiments - and confirming that dependency.


Yes. E.g. trying to introduce statements about not "absolutely measurable" - "dependency" in some physics to misdirect the attention from the problems of e.g. repeatability in social sciences (hence the need for "true experiment" in social sciences - which is so easily fulfilled in particle physics that it is not discussed).

- - - Updated - - -


Probably - but don't try find clever ways of evading that tax :-)

First of all, the qoute you brought was my discussion with another person, my discussion with you was solely on true experiments, and how they are a myth. ( Which is wildly accepted in the theoretical physics circles by the way.)

About the physics development since the 30s, I don't see any significant progress after the 30s beside hep ( which also is still mostly the same old same old stuff except a couple of theories.). Admittedly I haven't spent much time studying other fields for the last two decade or so, but still I'm confident there is not much of significant development elsewhere. And even then the theories me and all my colleague and people I know are working on take years if not centuries to be fully experimented on, and that doesn't make it pseudoscience.

About the social sciences part, I never argued that they are more accurate or will yield more precise measures, but as far as they are the activity of forming a logical structure and then validating results of the said structure by observations, it is called science. That's the definition of science. One field cannot be more science than the other, it can only be more or less accurate than another field. A study can be scientific or not, true or false, but the field itself is a branch if science.

[Forogil]

First of all, the qoute you brought was my discussion with another person, my discussion with you was solely on true experiments, and how they are a myth. ( Which is wildly accepted in the theoretical physics circles by the way.)

Wrong. You claiming that theoretical physics "circles" agree on that doesn't make it so - especially without any reference; and when you haven't established what you mean with "true experiments".

And this thread is one discussion; you have just left part of it.

About the physics development since the 30s, I don't see any significant progress after the 30s beside hep ( which also is still mostly the same old same old stuff except a couple of theories.). Admittedly I haven't spent much time studying other fields for the last two decade or so, but still I'm confident there is not much of significant development elsewhere. And even then the theories me and all my colleague and people I know are working on take years if not centuries to be fully experimented on, and that doesn't make it pseudoscience.

The physics development can also take a long time to be tested; the theory of general relativity was published in 1915 and one of the predictions (gravitational waves) was first directly detected in 2015. And a more useful invention: the laser was developed in the 1950s based on quantum theories from 1917; and it wasn't clear when it could be achieved.

However, high energy physics has been verified in many experiments - and as repeatedly stated e.g. cosmology was primarily developed after the 1930s.

About the social sciences part, I never argued that they are more accurate or will yield more precise measures, but as far as they are the activity of forming a logical structure and then validating results of the said structure by observations, it is called science. That's the definition of science. One field cannot be more science than the other, it can only be more or less accurate than another field. A study can be scientific or not, true or false, but the field itself is a branch if science.

That depends on whether such theories are presented and verified; and also if theories that don't confirm to experiments are rejected - and cannot be assumed a'priori just because proponents claim it is "science". There are many fields where this is questionable.

Does e.g. gender science make such predictions and verify them? Are those predictions independently verified or not?

[Slybak]

This is gold Sokal must be proud.

This has far less utility than the so-called Sokal Hoax (which itself had far less utility than most gave it credit) for a few reasons.

1) The Social Text, the journal to which Sokal submitted his hoax, had some sort of review process (in fairness, however, IIRC it wasn't a peer reviewed journal in the traditional sense at the time of Sokal's publication). Cogent does not. Cogent published the paper in question only a month after its submission date.

2) The Social Text was a journal dedicated to a specific set of fields, but Cogent is much more broad. The fault of the editors of The Social Text was that they did not consult researchers in math or physics to check if Sokal's paper was semantically coherent. The fault of the editors of Cogent is that they seem to have no editorial process whatsoever and will publish anything so long as you pay them $650.

3) The authors of the article in question first submitted it to NORMA, another open-access gender studies journal that is more reputable (or less disreputable, if you like) than Cogent and was rejected. It's bad enough to use the faulty practices of just one journal as evidence to indict an entire field (which isn't even what Sokal tried to do), but Boghossian and Lindsay are making the same kind of allegation after producing actual evidence to the contrary. Even as an attempted indictment of open access journals, this is a pretty big failure.

If anything, this is more a vulgar appeal to ideology than anything else, set up to rope in people who have a predisposition against gender studies and who are ignorant of how reputable journals in the field actually operate.

[HumbleDuck]

Wrong. You claiming that theoretical physics "circles" agree on that doesn't make it so - especially without any reference; and when you haven't established what you mean with "true experiments".

And this thread is one discussion; you have just left part of it.


The physics development can also take a long time to be tested; the theory of general relativity was published in 1915 and one of the predictions (gravitational waves) was first directly detected in 2015. And a more useful invention: the laser was developed in the 1950s based on quantum theories from 1917; and it wasn't clear when it could be achieved.

However, high energy physics has been verified in many experiments - and as repeatedly stated e.g. cosmology was primarily developed after the 1930s.


That depends on whether such theories are presented and verified; and also if theories that don't confirm to experiments are rejected - and cannot be assumed a'priori just because proponents claim it is "science". There are many fields where this is questionable.

Does e.g. gender science make such predictions and verify them? Are those predictions independently verified or not?

I'm going to ignore the first part of your comment again, because I simply cannot see any counter arguments represented by you there, and the cosmology part, yea alright it's been developed after 50s ... ( eye roll here)

About the third part though, the science is the activity and is independent of the results of the studies in the field.
Sure a study can be rejected, but it doesn't make the field not scientific. As far as the activity revolves around creating consistent logical structures and validating them via observations it is science.