Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.feminism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!usenet
From: dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson)
Subject: Re: Literary Theory as Humor: Alan Sokal's Hoax debunked
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ara-mac-251.itc.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <DrrD2z.507@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.1@ara-mac-251.itc.virginia.edu
Sender: -Not-Authenticated-[9087]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <Drou8w.9KF@eskimo.com> 
 <DrpM93.56z@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  <4nqce3$ol0@swsu65.swmed.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 13:49:46 GMT
Xdisclaimer: No attempt was made to authenticate the sender's name.
Lines: 38
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:171791 sci.lang:54017

In article <4nqce3$ol0@swsu65.swmed.edu>
a man of no importance <noone@nowhere.net> writes:

> Please pardon my stupidity, 

Politeness?  This is a pleasant new twist.

but how in the hell does this "debunk" 
> anything? This is so damn general it could be interpreted any which way, 
> kinda like astrology.
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah. The sensory data entering our brain gets filtered through 
> our pre-conceived notions. This does not change the fact that the editors 
> of a serious journal published an article that was deliberately written 
> as nonsense, just because it masqueraded as catering to the beliefs of 
> the academic left.

Why should it?  I haven't seen a single copy of that journal in my life
and suspect, from hearsay, that it's run by absolute morons.

> 
> For all the statements coming out of pomo philosophy about the equal 
> validity of many beliefs (no matter how stupid), they sure don't like to 
> admit the validity of beliefs based upon evidence and reason.


"they" who?  Perhaps they just want you to get clear about what
"validity" means.

> 
> a.m.o.n.i.


David
"It is interesting to note that the death penalty for individuals is
less controversial than the mere suggestion that a few corporations may
have forfeited their right to exist.  How many people does a company
have to harm before we question if it ought to exist?" Paul Hawken
