A very sensible well written piece.

Graham,

I know little about the culture wars, however, there is one point on which I will comment,

The publication involved in the Sokal hoax is "Social Text' a "postmodernist cultural studies journal" which indicates that it could not be described as a "peer reviewed science journal", far from it. It's more like breaking in to a cereal box. Sokal's intention was to ridicule non-scientists' use of inappropriate and misunderstood scientific terms in the humanities. I agree that any comparisons with Sokal's hoax are invalid(but for different reasons).

In fact, Windschuttle responding by denying that he had been hoaxed and defending the accuracy of the article (saying that it was only 10-15% false).

You argue that it was different from the Sokal hoax because "Social Text" was a peer-reviewed science journal, but Social Text was neither. It was a non-refereed journal of political opinion and analysis. And while it was published by Duke University Press, University Presses have very limited resources.

The last part of your argument is a straw man. Nobody has argued that particular individuals have a monopoly on the truth. And even if they did, it would not follow that there is nothing more to learn.

Katherine Wilson seems to be challenging Windshuttle to be vigilant in checking factual accuracy in great detail, yet has written two reviews about rerror-ridden books on biotechnology by a Jeffrey Smith, the latest called Genetic Roulette, where she is far less scientifically vigilant than she expects Windshuttle to be. Genetic Roulette is replete with factual errors, misrepresentations of evidence, and inventions of the author. A true scientific fraud. Wison's review, available though google, shows no awareness of the scope of Smith's scientic incompetance and mirepresentation.

Jeffrey Smith peddles nonsense and she laps it up because it fits her convictions. The affair is not even doubly ironic, it's multi-faceted irony as Graeme realises.

So it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

"It self-consciously compares itself to the Sokal hoax, but in that case the hoaxer got obvious gobbledygook into a peer-reviewed science journal."

That's not right, Graham - Social Text is a cultural studies journal, and it wasn't peer reviewed at the time when Sokal's piece was accepted - their policy was to eschew peer review to let more controversial articles appear!

One question.

When I make a reference in an assignment at university, I trust the editor/publisher of the information to be reliable and accurate. Does this mean I would be irresponsible to reference any work from Quadrant??

I think Mr. Windschuttle has handled this whole thing rather carelessly. It was 'the silly season' .. what a perfect excuse!!