Editing Science wars (section)

===''Social Text''===
In 1996, ''[[Social Text]]'', a [[left-wing]] [[Duke University]] publication of [[Postmodernism|postmodern]] [[critical theory]], compiled a "Science Wars" issue containing brief articles by postmodernist academics in the [[social sciences]] and the [[humanities]], that emphasized the roles of society and politics in science. In the introduction to the issue, the ''Social Text'' editor, activist [[Andrew Ross (academic)|Andrew Ross]], said that the attack upon [[science studies]] was a [[Conservatism|conservative]] [[Reactionary|reaction]] to reduced funding for scientific research. He characterized the ''Flight from Science and Reason'' conference as an attempted "linking together a host of dangerous threats: [[scientific creationism]], [[New Age]] alternatives and cults, [[astrology]], [[Ufology|UFO-ism]], the radical science movement, postmodernism, and critical science studies, alongside the ready-made historical specters of [[Deutsche Physik|Aryan-Nazi science]] and the Soviet error of [[Lysenkoism]]" that "degenerated into name-calling".<ref>Ross, Andrew.  (1996). "Introduction" ''[[Social Text]] 46/47'', Vol. 14, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 1–13, esp. p. 7.</ref>

In another ''Social Text'' article, the postmodern sociologist  [[Dorothy Nelkin]] characterised Gross and Levitt's vigorous response as a "call to arms in response to the failed marriage of Science and the State"&mdash;in contrast to the scientists' historical tendency to avoid participating in perceived political threats, such as [[creation science]], the [[animal rights movement]], and anti-abortionists' attempts to curb fetal research.{{clarify|date=April 2013}} At the end of the Soviet–American [[Cold War]] (1945–91), [[military funding of science]] declined, while funding agencies demanded accountability, and research became directed by private interests. Nelkin suggested that postmodernist critics were "convenient scapegoats" who diverted attention from problems in science.<ref>Nelkin, Dorothy.  (1996). "The Science Wars: Responses to a Marriage Failed" ''Social Text'' 46/47, Vol. 14, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 93–100., p. 95.</ref>

Also in 1996, physicist [[Alan Sokal]] had submitted an article to ''Social Text'' titled "[[Sokal affair|Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity]]", which proposed that [[quantum gravity]] is a [[Linguistics|linguistic]] and [[Social constructionism|social construct]] and that [[quantum physics]] supports postmodernist criticisms of scientific [[Objectivity (science)|objectivity]]. The staff published it in the "Science Wars" issue as a relevant contribution, later claiming that they held the article back from earlier issues due to Sokal's alleged refusal to consider revisions.<ref>Robbins, Bruce and Ross, Andrew. [http://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf Editorial Response to the hoax, explaining Social Text's decision to publish] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120609153913/http://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf |date=9 June 2012 }}</ref> Later, in the May 1996 issue of ''[[Lingua Franca (magazine)|Lingua Franca]]'', in the article "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies", Sokal exposed his [[parody]]-article, "Transgressing the Boundaries" as an experiment testing the [[intellectual rigor]] of an [[academic journal]] that would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sokal |first1=Alan D. |title=Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity |journal=Social Text |year=1996 |issue=46/47 |pages=217–252 |doi=10.2307/466856 |jstor=466856 }}</ref> The matter became known as the "[[Sokal Affair]]" and brought greater public attention to the wider conflict.<ref>Sokal, Alan. (1996).  "[http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190904042240/https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html |date=2019-09-04 }}," ''Lingua Franca'', May/June, pp 62–64.</ref>

[[Jacques Derrida]], a frequent target of anti-[[moral relativism|relativist]] and anti-postmodern criticism in the wake of Sokal's article, responded to the hoax in "Sokal and Bricmont Aren't Serious", first published in ''[[Le Monde]]''. He called Sokal's action sad (''triste'') for having overshadowed Sokal's mathematical work and ruined the chance to sort out controversies of scientific objectivity in a careful way. Derrida went on to fault him and co-author Jean Bricmont for what he considered an act of intellectual bad faith: they had accused him of scientific incompetence in the English edition of a follow-up book (an accusation several English reviewers noted), but deleted the accusation from the French edition and denied that it had ever existed. He concluded, as the title indicates, that Sokal was not serious in his approach, but had used the spectacle of a "quick practical joke" to displace the scholarship Derrida believed the public deserved.<ref>{{cite book |last=Derrida |first=Jacques |author-link=Jacques Derrida |title=Paper Machine |url=https://archive.org/details/papermachinecult00derr |url-access=limited |orig-year=1994 |year=2005 |publisher=Stanford University Press |location=Stanford |page=[https://archive.org/details/papermachinecult00derr/page/n41 70] |no-pp=true |isbn=978-0-8047-4619-9}}</ref>