JonF said:
Fair enough; my point was just that they fell for the hoax not because they agreed with the claims in the paper, but because they did not understand them and decided to trust them anyway. It wasn’t pomo jargon that tricked them, but science jargon. This is deplorable, but it doesn’t stand as an indictment specifically of postmodernist scholarship; I’m sure that you, for example, could put together a hoax discussion of physics that would completely snow me (although I hope it would have to be a little more sophisticated than the stuff that got past Robbins and Ross). Naturally, I trust I wouldn’t be fool enough to publish your paper without getting a qualified referee’s opinion first! but again, that’s an isolated case of an editor’s error of judgement and doesn’t necessarily reflect on postmodernism or cultural studies as a whole.
Oddly enough, it seems to me, Sokal’s hoax actually had the effect of confirming one of the observations that the “science studies” people are always making: namely, that the effective power of science for most people lies much more in its cultural authority than in its epistemological validity. With a good degree and a respectable teaching position, you can put together a piece of complete BS and if it sounds technically impressive, nine out of ten quite intelligent people will believe you (as “creation scientists” know). So the social constructivists aren’t entirely wrong.
(Man, I can’t believe I’m actually sticking up for these people, but fair is fair.) Anyway, nice to chat with you again, I don’t think we’ve been in the same thread since we battled the Velikovskians together back in the 360-degrees-in-a-circle debate.
And while I’m hijacking, did I miss something or did RM Mentock just severely flame himself for his group-theory explanation? I think he should lodge a strong complaint with the moderators and have them threaten to ban him if he attacks himself like that again. 
Kimstu