Defending the centre

Simons refers to the 'Ern Malley' hoax and given Quadrant co-founder James McAuley's involvement in that incident there is a touch of irony there. But the author of the Quadrant hoax, while certainly aware of 'Ern Malley', had their eye on another hoax: the 'Sokal Affair'. Simons provides a lengthy quote from the anonymous author of the hoax where they draw comparisons between their hoax and the 'Sokal Affair'. They even gave Windschuttle a clue by referring to the 'Sokal Affair' in the opening paragraph of the article in question.

In 1996 Alan Sokal, dismayed by what he saw as the lack of academic rigour in post modernist and deconstructionist writing on science, submitted a hoax essay - under his own name - to  Social Text. His essay purported to show how quantum gravity theory would lead the way to a 'more progressive' science. Sokal filled the essay with bad science and meaningless quotes from the literature he was targeting. Despite the article's many failings it was accepted and published in the Spring/Summer 1996 edition of Social Text, a special 'Science Wars' edition. Sokal revealed his hoax in an article published in Lingua Franca.

While Sokal was primarily interested in how science was being treated, his hoax set off heated debates about the academic rigour of post modernist and deconstructionist thought in general. The credibility of those movements suffered. Adherents of those movements still revile Sokal to this day.

There are some important differences between the 'Sokal Affair' and the Quadrant hoax. Sokal submitted his hoax essay under his own name, while the Quadrant hoax was submitted under a false name. Sokal's hoax essay contained no real science and even highlighted the pseudo-science of Rupert Sheldrake as a positive development, while the Quadrant hoax contained a mix of real and fictitious events. All the quotes and footnotes in Sokal's hoax essay were real, while the Quadrant hoax contained a mix of real and fake quotes and footnotes.

Sokal regarded his hoax essay as a parody. He used real sources from the field he was targeting to 'prove' ridiculous arguments. An important issue was highlighted when his hoax essay was accepted; the editors of Social Text could not tell the difference between a parody and a real essay. (Though to be fair the desire to include an essay by a 'real' scientist in their 'Science Wars' special edition must have been particularly strong.) Sokal, regarding himself as being of the left, was not targeting the ideological goals of Social Text - he states that he supports feminist and social justice issues - instead he was targeting what he saw as their flawed method.

The Quadrant hoax - with it's discussion of a mix of real and fictitious events - does not appear to be a parody; rather it seems to have been a designed to fool Windschuttle. Also it seems to have been aimed at Windschuttle's ideological viewpoint, rather than his (or Quadrant's) intellectual method.

It appears that Windschuttle let his guard down in accepting this article because it appealed to his ideological viewpoint. It seems that even basic checking of the Author's bona fides - an author who does not exist - would have revealed that something was amiss. Then to fail to fact check an essay - not to mention the footnotes - from an author about whom so little was known compounds the error further. This has been a serious lapse for Windschuttle.  Perhaps rather than trying to justify himself, he should be asking himself if he is capable enough to be the editor of a journal that claims to adhere to rigourous standards.