Hoaxing

"Hoaxing" academic papers seems to be a sport for some. It's generally the
attempt to create "gibberish," have it accepted, and then gloat to illustrate
how absurdly pompous academic gibberish can be. 

Here are three "hoax" examples:
--Computer-generated 'hoax'
--Tribune story on "hoax paper   
--Sokal's original "hoax paper   
--Sokal reveals "hoax paper   
--Stanley Fish response to Sokal   

Our questions for discussion:

1) Does these hoaxes reflect the jargon and pomposity of theory, or are they
a reflection of bad-faith and an ignorance (or at least misrepresentation)
of conferences and journals?

2) Do the hoaxers make legitimate points, or does it reinforce anti-intellectualism?

3) How would you respond to the supporters of the hoaxers who see their
act as a valid way of criticizing academics?

4) What would you say to the critics of the hoaxers who see this as
ignorant cheap shots?

Return to JT's homepage

Page maintained by: Jim Thomas - jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu