Hehe. Fine.
However, the concrete abstract seems very promising for a theologian. It is clear that Boudry know the concepts that he manage. His abstract is a piece of cake, it is a "I solved the Teologian problem of our time!" . It is not pure gibberish. Remenber that the Sokal affair was around a complete article, not an abstract. I know that a great number of hoax papers are submitted and accepted in scientific press.Many of them are not for joking purposes, but for people that want relevance, fame and money. This hasn´t to undermine hard sciences. ( Not in the case of modern cultural and gender studies that are pure indoctrination ) In my particular case, I worked in European I+D projects where subsidies depended on the imagination, the length of the documents and the appropriate use of buzzwords. Alberto. 2012/9/29 meekerdb <[email protected]>: > John Clark at least will appreciate this. :-) > > > -------- Original Message -------- > To: Skeptic <[email protected]> > > > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/a-sokal-style-hoax-by-an-anti-religious-philosopher-2/ > ----- > But today I’m presenting something else: a real Sokal-style hoax that > Boudry has perpetrated. He informed me yesterday that he had submitted > a fake, post-modernish and Sophisticated-Theological™ abstract to two > theology conferences: > > "By the way, I thought you might find this funny. I wrote a spoof > abstract full of theological gibberish (Sokal-style) and submitted it > to two theology conferences, both of which accepted it right away. It > got into the proceedings of the Reformational Philosophy conference. > See Robert A. Maundy (an anagram of my name) on p. 22 of the program > proceedings." > ----- > > The comments are worth reading too. > > =============================================================== > > > > And there is a most excellent review/refutation of Plantinga's "Where the > Conflict Really Lies" by Boudry here (I notice he credits Yonatan Fishman > among others): > > > http://ihpst.net/newsletters/sept-oct2012.pdf > > Here's a snippet: > > "In much of what passes as sophisticated theology these days, the term ‘God’ > does no explanatory > work at all, but functions as an intellectual vanishing point, a bundle of > all explanatory loose ends. > God is simply equated with the uncaused cause, the ground of all being, as > that-which-does-notrequire- > further-explanation." > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
