A decade ago I would have found this sort of thing ‘hilarious’. I hadn’t read Sokals book when it came out, but I thought it useful as a taking-down of pseudo-science posturing by philosophers plagued with physics-envy. Now I’m just sceptical about border-wars between science & the humanities.
Someone recently quoted a section of his hoax paper to me as an example of irredemiable scientific illiteracy by the French Philosopher Derrida:
The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability - it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something — of a center starting from which an observer could master the field — but the very concept of the game which, after all, I was trying to elaborate.
Sokal, emphasises in his book, Fashionable Nonsense, that its their papers:
first major gibberish quote, namely Derrida’s comment on relativity (“the Einsteinian constant is not a constant …”). We haven’t the slightest idea what this means— and neither, apparently, does Derrida
and repeated by Weinberg in an article in the New York Times:
[when] I first encountered this paragraph, I was bothered not so much by the obscurity of Derrida’s terms “center” and “game.” I was willing to suppose that these were terms of art, defined elsewhere by Derrida. What bothered me was his phrase “the Einsteinian constant,” which I had never met in my work as a physicist.
I had a look at where the original quote was taken from though much of it went over my head, its clear that Derrida was responding to a question by Hippolyte (this is mentioned in his paper too).
When I take, for example, the structure of certain algebraic constructions [ensembles], where is the center? Is the center the knowledge of general rules which, after a fashion, allow us to understand the interplay of the elements? Or is the center certain elements which enjoy a particular privilege within the ensemble? … With Einstein, for example, we see the end of a kind of privilege of empiric evidence. And in that connection we see a constant appear, a constant which is a combination of space-time, which does not belong to any of the experimenters who live the experience, but which, in a way, dominates the whole construct; and this notion of the constant – is this the center?
Now I expect the famous educated layman if asked what possible constant Hippolyte could be referring to point me in the direction of the speed of light. But this can’t be right, as Hippolyte says it is a ‘combination of space-time’, which can only mean the Minkowski metric, which is invariant (‘constant’) and does ‘dominate’ the whole theory (‘construct’), and is not experentially obvious like speed or distance (‘does not belong to the experimenters who live the experience’), and nor do we experience space-time in the sense of Minkowski, we experience space and time.
Then Derridas answer explains itself, the Einstenian constant is simply their way, in that conversation to refer to Minkowskis Metric, neither of which appear to know the name of, and nor should it be suprising that they don’t.
So when he says ‘The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center’ - he is saying that it is not a constant or a centre in the sense of his theorising of (French) Structuralism and not (Bourbakian) Structuralism.
I have only an amateurs interest in Continental Philosophy, however Wikipedia has this to say about ‘Centre’:
The “center” is that element of a structure which appears given or fixed, thereby anchoring the rest of the structure and allowing it to play. In the history of metaphysics specifically, this function is fulfilled by different terms (which Derrida says are always associated with presence): “eidos, archè, telos, energia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth.”[11] Whichever term is at the center of the structure, argues Derrida, the overall pattern remains similar. This central term ironically escapes structurality, the key feature of structuralism according to which all meaning is defined relationally, through other terms in the structure. From this perspective, the center is the most alien or estranged element in a structure: it comes from somewhere outside and remains absolute until a new center is substituted in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. “The center”, therefore, “is not the center.”
It then becomes clear why it isn’t a centre, and why Derrida is known for Post-Structuralism as opposed to Structuralism. In Structuralism all elements are are related to each other including ‘central’ elements. In Derridas theory the ‘centre’ is estranged or removed or transcendent - it is not part of the actual structure. The Minkowski metric is a central part of Einsteins theory (Structure) in the usual sense of central, hence it isn’t central in Derridas sense.
This is just a small section from Sokals Hoax paper - and it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. One then begins to wonder about all the other quotes that Sokal cobbled his paper from, that if given sufficient contexualisation rather than decontextualisation would they also appear to begin to make sense?
Re: Hilarious Takedown of Bonkers Maths in Top Psychology Journal
There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education this past summer. Here is the response from Fredrickson. Also, she published an Updated Thinking on Positivity Ratios.