The short version: Sokal (and those who follow in his footsteps) cherry-pick their quotes, and then refuse to read them in any kind of context whatsoever. To think that this has anything to do with forming an informed opinion of a philosopher (or other thinker) is ludicrous.

1) He was clever, had many interesting ideas, but was caught up in a culture that caused him to publish his ideas in essays/aticles that were largely meaningless, causing the ideas to go mostly unnoticed.

2) Even a defective clock tells the correct time twice a day.

I find McLuhan idea's about the role of media within society interesting, and very relevant to any working with Internet-related projects. The same could be said for a lot of postmodern ideas, which seem to partly revolve around the fact that the changes wrought by modern technology question the foundations of things like psychology, society, gender and so on.

I don't think anyone here would take Ray Kurzweil's books seriously, but quite a few people would upvote an article by Dawkins or Chomsky, whose books have contributed to their respective fields in the same way that Kurzweil has to ours -- which is to say, not at all.

P.S. The last time someone submitted an article about the Sokal affair, I posted a short comment about the importance of postmodernism here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=564856

For contributions to the field please refer to his journal publications. A partial list is given in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard...

The problem is that it's not Dawkins' or Chomsky's academic articles that have showed up on HN, it's the other stuff.

Ever heard of a "meme"?

Dawkins has contributed plenty to his field, and he writes very accessible books.

That essay by him obviously doesn't criticize the entire field. He's just telling his readers to put up some nonsense filters before they start reading padded fluff.

In writing his book, Dawkins ignored the last 2000+ years of scholarship on the nature of ideas, and influenced a tiny group of academics who are completely isolated from any other form of philosophy.

The Journal of Memetics (which was the only one of its kind) ceased publishing in 2005.

It was a throw-away comparison, not the point of the book. But, the term "meme" is a good meme, and it caught on.

I'd say that's a good thing, though. It helps to understand that there are probably better ideas than yours, because then you don't sit put, but at the same time, it's good we all have a drive to explain and create. Otherwise, we'd still be using punch cards -- to weave our HN postings into Jacquard's loom.

That said...

My biggest problem with postmodernism is simply that there seems to be no "there" there. Of course, postmodernists would likely argue that that's the point, but it's terribly hard to talk about something so nebulously defined.

But the result of decades of postmodernist (and deconstructionist, and poststructuralist, since they're all interrelated) thought, to me, has ultimately been nothing but a game. One plays the game by choosing some particular thing (the "text", which of course is not required to actually consist of text) and:

1. Denying any and all conscious intentions the author/designer/creator may have had.

2. Reading into it any and all assumptions/positions/prejudices which happen to be fashionable to assign to one's target, by liberally playing with language or context.

This is problematic to me because it has no justifiable basis -- it's just as ad-hoc and just as unsound as a Freudian constantly asserting this or that unobservable, untestable subconscious motivation. Of course, within postmodern thought this is considered valid because postmodern thought admits the existence of nothing but present subjectivity.

And the worst part is that the largest visible result has been nothing more than the fulfillment by postmodernists of what Foucault had described in his work: an entrenched power which can bring itself to bear against dissidents and which structures all discourse to its own advantage through things like its use of language.

Meanwhile, what you consider to be "cool ideas" are not necessarily new, and not necessarily foreign to people here. Take, for example, "the map is not the territory": this is not a particularly new insight, and it would be a poor programmer indeed who confused, in the style of Magritte's famous warning, an instance of a Pipe class in a program with an actual pipe.

Could you explain that in English?

But seriously, I have no doubt all those smart people have some interesting insights about culture etc.

It's just too bad they are covered up by their own cultural belief that things simply can NOT be expressed clearly and succinctly.

I happen to think this is a coping strategy with the fact that 90% of everything is crap. It's a strategy to make it very hard to differentiate the crap for the good stuff.

Having read a bunch of original monographs and articles, a a stack of scathing critiques and even more scathing countercritiques, having went through two graduate seminars on Derrida and postmodernism (not for credit - I was studying math at the time), luckily with a professor who welcomed criticism, here's what my very personal opinion comes down to:

1. Most of it is bunk. There's just no escaping it. However, that's not necessarily a strong point against it, because see Sturgeon's Law.

2. Occassionally, some of it contains real insight, thoughts of depth and value; unfortunately, you have to work really hard to get to them, as they're shrouded by murkiness and vagueness to a degree that's quite astonishing. The thing is, postmodernists will tell you (and, in so many words, so will the primary texts) that this vagueness and murkiness is necessary; that there's no way to approach the deep thoughts except by deconstructing language and thought themselves. Well, I ain't buying that (I've tried very hard to buy that, it just won't get bought). In all cases where I actually reached something I thought was valuable, all the junk on the way only hindered, never helped - the horrible jargon, the bureaucratic sentences, the nonsensical code-words, the weak and unstable pulse of the argument. I remain convinced that none of this is necessary, and it's there simply because the culture encourages bad writing, in which it's easier to hide pure bunk (see 1.).

I offer Derrida as an example of a postmodern (well, poststructuralist) author who has Something To Say. In particular, after some wrangling and exasperation, I grew to appreciate his Dissemination, especially the first part, Plato's Pharmacy, which offers some brilliant observations on Phaedrus and the nature of writing (again, if you can plough your way through to them, etc.). I recommend this. I've never read his more famous Of Grammatology, and not sure I will now.

3. The quality of writing varies wildly from one author to another, even if we restrict to the most famous ones. Lacan is bullshit, pure and simple. Don't waste your time on him. Foucault seems to have been a shoddy scholar whose theories fall apart when you look at the evidence closer. Baudrillard I've come to regard as a sort of a gifted stand-up artist with an ear for impressive aphorism.

With all the occassional good stuff I found while reading postmodernist literature and arguing with friends about it, I couldn't possibly "follow" it in any meaningful way because of these (again, my personal opinion, etc.) flaws:

a) culture that accepts and encourages texts of very poor quality. This is more damning than 1. above; this makes sure the shit rises to the top. Most of writing is so obscure that it's not possible to refute it: there's nothing solid to get hold of to refute. Behind this obscurity is a huge amount of parroting, bad thinking and simply nonsense, and nothing in the intellectual postmodenist life encourages you to try to separate the wheat from the chaff; in fact, you're the enemy if you think wheat and chaff can possibly be separated, or even exist in any objective way. Think of the Bogdanov affair others recalled in comments here. In Sokal, outsiders (a physicist, other scientists, journalists) criticized the "postmodernists", who counter-attacked in the "culture wars". In Bogdanov, physicists and mathematicians themselves attacked the apparently nonsensical work, and the debate was between scientists. There's a huge difference here.

b) the double standards that pervade all texts and thought. Postmodern authors almost never scrutinize their own assumptions as critically as they scrutinize, say, the assumptions of modernists. It gets ridiculous after a while, because you find it hard to believe that someone can, say, claim that all ideologies are equally suspect and we must denounce the very possibility of knowledge itself if we are to get to the bottom of it all; and then in the next paragraph prostrate themselves dogmatically before some other thinker and quote their claims with all the reverence of Gospel truth, obviously bearing universally validity. You keep thinking, wait, it must be a joke, but the punchline never comes. Another way in which this annoyed me was how inevitably almost all those guys were ideologically extreme leftists, usually Marxists. It's not even the ideology itself that irked me the most, it's how unimaginable it was to see anything else, how dogmatically it pervaded everything, and never got a fraction of critical attention that was lavishly spent on, say, the idea of objective truth, or the simulacra in modern capitalist society. These are just two most obvious examples, but really, the amount of double standard going on, the lack of reflection at one's own thoughts is very irritating. At the end, I couldn't accept it even as a worthy way of exploring the world that's simply alien to me. I couldn't escape the conclusion that almost all of it was junk, sometimes very attractive intellectually - and therefore dangerous - junk; with some surprising exceptions, like some of Derrida I talked of above, which don't, after all, change the overall picture.

Yes. There are many historical examples of fields which are simply complete nonsense, with some practitioners who are well-intentioned and wrong and others who are just blatant charlatans. Alchemy is one obvious example. More controversially, psychotherapy in our own era probably qualifies (http://www.amazon.com/House-Cards-Robyn-Dawes/dp/0684830914).

Alchemy had a long history, though, and often resembled practical chemistry much closely than it did a quest for chimerical substances. The practical side of alchemy produced some worthwhile facts and techniques, and overlapped in many places with early chemistry. Some late practitioners of alchemy are also honored as important early scientists: Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, and Tycho Brahe among them. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_chemistry shows quite a bit of overlap.

But alchemy had to be rejected in order for modern science to emerge. There were several reasons: first, it was illegal to practice alchemy in many areas. Partly because of this, alchemists were secretive, while science advances by sharing information. Finally, Francis Bacon's work on the scientific method came along late in the game. So the only logical way forward was to re-brand the sensible parts of alchemy as natural philosophy or natural science, and proceed from there.

I find McLuhan idea's about the role of media within society interesting, and very relevant to any working with Internet-related projects. The same could be said for a lot of postmodern ideas, which seem to partly revolve around the fact that the changes wrought by modern technology question the foundations of things like psychology, society, gender and so on.