It's weird to me that scientists make so much hay of the Sokal affair given how unscientific it is.
It's a single data point. Did anyone ever claim the editorial process of Social Text caught 100% of bunk? If not, how do we determine what percent it catches based on one slipped-through paper?
I'd expect scientists to demand both more reproducibility and more data to draw conclusions from one anecdote.
It's a single data point. Did anyone ever claim the editorial process of Social Text caught 100% of bunk? If not, how do we determine what percent it catches based on one slipped-through paper?
I'd expect scientists to demand both more reproducibility and more data to draw conclusions from one anecdote.