From: helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de   
      
   In article <1plf6cu.1p928l11ov21kN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,   
   nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:   
      
   > Rock Brentwood  wrote:   
   >   
   > > This (meaning: the whole affair that this posting was a small part of=   
   )   
   > > has come to my attention, only now, because the twins involved in it   
   > > have died together on the same day yesterday.   
   > >   
   > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 11:43:50 PM UTC-5, John Baez wrote:   
   > > > ... I hear that two brothers have managed to publish 3 meaningless   
   > > > papers in physics journals as a hoax - and even get Ph.D. degrees   
   > > > in physics from Bourgogne University in the process!   
   > >   
   > > on the "reverse Sokal" affair (as Baez elsewhere called it)   
   > > that may or may not have been a hoax or may have been for real,   
   > > because apparently nobody could make any sense out of what they   
   > > were trying to say.   
      
   My guess is that the consensus is that it was not a hoax.  Usually,   
   hoaxers want to point out the stupidity of the hoaxed, or want to amuse   
   the public (and themselves by following the reaction of the public).   
   The twins were well known in France as popular-science celebrities, with   
   TV shows and so on---sort of like Carl Sagan or Brian Cox, except   
   without a scientific reputation, so perhaps more like Bill Nye the   
   Science Guy or, for the older folks, Julius Sumner Miller (who did have   
   a degree in physics; those applying for jobs now will be amused (or not)   
   at the fact that he applied for 700(!) jobs in 1937 before finally   
   getting one at Dillard University).   
      
   As far as the first motivation goes, why would they want to send up   
   physics, publishing, refereeing, academia, or whatever?  That makes   
   sense only for a complete outsider (like Sokal with respect to _Social   
   Text_) in order to mock the field, or for insiders (e.g. G. Beck, H.   
   Bethe & W. Riezler, Naturwissenschaften, 19, 39 (1931), which is a   
   brilliant spoof of Eddington).  People working in popular science but   
   without a scientific reputation have no motivation for something like   
   that.   
      
   To amuse the public (and thus themselves)?  Their work is far too   
   obscure for that.   
      
   My conclusion is that they hugely over-estimated their own abilities,   
   suffered somewhat from not having academic titles, and decided to remedy   
   the situation.  Maybe they chose the topics they did because it is very   
   difficult for non-experts---apparently even for some of those judging   
   their theses---to tell real from phony in such specialized fields.  They   
   would probably have been content to have their titles (with the lowest   
   passing grade), but when others became interested they had to defend   
   their reputation by all means possible, and probably didn't have good   
   judgement in that respect.   
      
   While it is true that nothing has come of their work, there are also   
   probably many papers which aren't cited at all but are more or less OK.   
   On the other hand, many experts in the field HAVE examined their work,   
   and AFAIK no serious scientist thinks that there is anything to it.   
      
   I'm willing to admit, though, that Foucault's pendulum might have been   
   an attempt at some tongue-in-cheek humour, which might have been OK if   
   the work were of good quality otherwise.   
      
   Perhaps referees and editors have become a bit more astute as a result.   
      
   > Lots more on   
   >    
   > (with a huge disputes page)   
      
   Indeed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)