To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By David Peterson at Apr 17, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
This morning's Guardian tells the story of three MIT computer grad students who used a software program of their own design to generate a fake research paper, loaded with titillating, appropriately academic-sounding jargon such as "scatter/gather" and "I/O server," which they then submitted to the conveners of this coming summer's World Multiconference on Systematics, Cybernetics and Informatics in Florida---and, lo and behold, the WMSCI "promptly selected" their fake for presentation at the conference. Jibberish and all. The paper, The Guardian elaborates, was comprised of a "random collection of charts, disgrams and obtuse lines such as 'We implemented our scatter/gather I/O server in Simula-67'." But The Guardian failed to mention whether the WMSCI-selected fake delved into the related fields of pornography and human sexuality, feces and urination, and the like. (Though at least one rumor is afoot which suggests that these MIT students are hard at work designing a new program that they hope will one day be capable of generating an infinitely large body of gibberish along these lines.) This tale of "complete gibberish" passing the muster among the clearly cynical conveners of the World Multiconference on Systematics, Cybernetics and Informatics is a real beauty. No doubt about it. Though the pranksters appear to be of the opinion that the WMSCI's acceptance of their fake, Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy, was "not a statement about jargon in computer science," The Guardian also reports. Oddly enough. But if this particular fake was not about jargon in computer science---and about a lot of the other bogus affectations of the celebrated universe of discourse among really sharp minds---then what else might it have been about, pray tell? Still. This little tale about vanity academic conferences leading to vanity calls for papers and vanity presentations in exchange for hard cash pales in comparison to the similar tale of nearly a decade ago, when one unabashed prankster---He never denied that he was a prankster. Did he?---the American physicist Alan Sokal, published his seminal "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" in the allegedly serious journal Social Text---and not only didn't mean a word he had written. But knew that not having to mean a word that one publishes comprises an overwhelmingly large part of what the field he was pranking is really all about. In this latter case, the exemplary work of Sokal, working individually, as well as in partnership with the Belgian physicist Jean Bricmont (i.e., Impostures Intellectuelles (1997), or Fashionable Nonsense (1998)---though the U.K. translation Intellectual Impostures (1998) clearly is to be preferred), ought always to be kept in mind, I think. Wherever postmodern vanities and straightforward deception pop up.
"Making a science out of applied idiocy," Richard Jinman, The Guardian, April 16, 2005 The Alan Sokal-Social Text Affair Website at New York University (Homepage)
"Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," Alan D. Sokal, Social Text, Spring/Summer, 1996 "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies," Alan D. Sokal, Lingua Franca, May/June, 1996 "Transgressing the Boundaries: An Afterword," Alan D. Sokal, Dissent, Fall, 1996 "What the Social Text Affair Does and Does Not Prove," Alan D. Sokal, in A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science, Noretta Koertge, Ed., Oxford University Press, 1998
"Rationality/Science," Noam Chomsky, Z Papers, 1995

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (13)

50

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Peterson, David at Oct 06, 2005 17:57 PM
That a theoretical formulation is desirable because it makes it easier and more efficient to write more articles and books giving simple explanations for phenomena that are complex and diverse seems a strange justification for work that claims to be scientific.
---- Richard C. Lewontin, "The Wars Over Evolution," New York Review of Books, October 20, 2005. Lewontin was commenting on pseudo-biological work that employs "[m]etaphorical Darwinian models of cultural and historical behavior [that] do not contain genes, but contain cultural variants that arise like gene mutations and that are somehow differentially propagated over time in human minds and institutions, resulting in cultural evolution"---i.e., memes, and the like. Specifically, Lewontin was reviewing Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd's Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution (University of Chicago Press, 2005). But this slop aside, don't you think that the quote with which I began captures even better the modus operandi of the academic parlor game known variously as post-structuralism, post-modernism, deconstruction, and the like? (Maybe every other form of intellecual fraud known to humankind, too.) I mean wasn't the ultimate point of all of this junk that it made it easier and more efficient for the self-avowed P-Sers to write more articles and books and make ever-zanier claims about the world, given their adoption of certain terminologically- and stylistically-driven templates for discoursing about phenomena that in truth have nothing to do with the actual phenomena, but everything to do with the production of zany claims and books and articles, and the reputations that follow therefrom?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Musil23, Ulrich at Aug 29, 2005 22:22 PM
Sokal: "poststructuralist critiques have.... [stated] that physical reality, no less than social reality, is at bottom a social and linguistic construct" Yet, strangely, he never produces a single "poststructuralist" critique that ever states or even implies anything of the kind. Is this kind of intellectual dishonesty what constitutes "scholarship" to Sokal and his fans? Is this what they think "analysis" and argumentation is? Very sad. In any case, David; since Sokal has consistently failed to back up his claim, I am eager for you to show me where any poststructuralist has ever claimed that "physical reality, no less than social reality, is at bottom a social and linguistic construct." For anybody interested in the charlatanism (and embarrassing factual errors) behind the Sokal project, see my expose on Richard Dawkins's "Postmodernism Disrobed" at: http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum58/58739.html

Reply this comment

50

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Peterson, David at Aug 29, 2005 21:39 PM
Ulrich: Shouldn't you instead provide us with (a) some evidence for the charge in the sixth paragraph of your original post (2005-08-25 09:47 AM) that "The 'French intellectuals' that he [Alan Sokal] has never read have never uttered any of the insane theses Sokal attributes to them," as well as (b) some evidence for your subsequent charge that Sokal purports to show "that Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, et al. [have] actually written in favor of relativism, or that 'reality isn't real', or *any* of the other things Sokal claims they say" (2005-08-29 11:58 AM)? In other words: Why bait me with the request to provide you with something that, to judge by your testimony here, you believe doesn't exist? Does this question derive from something I've written above (e.g., 2005-08-28 07:44 PM)? If it does, can you show us? I honestly don't recall any prominent instances in which Sokal purported to show that Derrida (etc.) offer serious arguments in favor of relativism and defend the view that reality isn't real. On the other hand, I do recall other things---for example, that an anything-goes ethos appears to govern the poststructuralist genre, and that one approach for showing this is by studying how various practitioners of the genre use work from other fields that has zero application to the way they are using it. (Recall that the original Sokal hoax was one grandiose case in point. The difference being that in Sokal's case the misuse of scientific work was deliberate, whereas in the other cases it is a cynical parlor game---with careers, prestige, and personal reputations on the line. But nothing more serious than this.)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Musil23, Ulrich at Aug 29, 2005 20:58 PM
Dear David: I'm asking you again to simply cut and paste the exact moment (*any* moment) when Sokal or anybody else has demonstrated that Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, et al. has actually written in favor of relativism, or that "reality isn't real," or *any* of the other things Sokal claims they say. You can't keep pointint to some other web page, because that information isn't in there. Trust me, I've read it all. All I'm asking for is *one* example. Just one.

Reply this comment

50

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Peterson, David at Aug 29, 2005 17:40 PM
Friends: Here is the opening sentence from the sixth paragraph of Ulrich's previous post (2005-08-25 09:47 AM):
The "French intellectuals" that he [Alan Sokal] has never read have never uttered any of the insane theses Sokal attributes to them.
Now. I say Ulrich's sentence is untrue. For anyone curious to look at more about all of this, take a look at the webpage devoted to the original Sokal hoax and some of its aftermath. (Doubtless, there is a lot more material out there.)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Musil23, Ulrich at Aug 29, 2005 10:06 AM
David Peterson claims it is untrue that the "French intellectuals" have never uttered the insane theses Sokal attributes to them (i.e., that reality isn't real, or that reality is socially constructed, or whatever) He claims that the book "Fashionable Nonsense" proves that they do in fact make these claims. I beg you, David, to show me where Sokal has demonstrated -- in *any* publication whatsoever -- that any of the writers he's targeting (i.e., what he calls "postmodernists") have ever uttered one word in favor of "relativism" or "the social construction of reality" or any of the bizarre ideas normally attributed to them. A good example of what I'm talking about can be seen in Richard Dawkins's famous summary of "Fashionable Nonsense" in an article he wrote called "Postmodernism Disrobed." I've written a demonstration of how Sokal's and Dawkins's "cut and paste" method of "argument" -- which, strangely, doesn't require any analysis or argument of any kind -- could easily be applied to any number of writers that Sokal and Dawkins would presumably admire, and that none of it proves anything whatsoever. I also point out just a couple of the simple factual lies these scientists reiterate (perhaps unknowingly), and on which much of their "argument," such as it is, depends. Unfortunately, it's too long to post here, so I've posted it on the terrible "perspectives.com" site here: http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum58/58739.html

Reply this comment

50

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Peterson, David at Aug 29, 2005 04:44 AM
Ulrich and Friends: Best of luck with getting Alan Sokal's attention. In the meantime, Sokal's original hoax did demonstrate---minimally, at least---that the editorial collective at Social Text, ca. 1995-1996, was utterly unfamiliar with what the genre of deliberate and hoax-ridden nonsense and pretentiousness is like, as opposed to the genre of mere or even tenure-tracked and cynical nonsense and pretentiousness. Offhand, I don't recall Sokal (or Jean Bricmont) having made grandiose claims beyond this about what the original hoax demonstrated. Of course, whatever accompanied the subsequent book (Fashionable Nonsense/Intellectual Impostures (1998)) and the millions of exchanges that all of this generated is another matter entirely. Your third paragraph is true. But how does it relate to the Sokal hoax---for example, to his original "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (Social Text, Spring/Summer, 1996)? However, the opening sentence of your sixth paragraph is untrue. (But at this point, I can at best refer everyone to Fashionable Nonsense/Intellectual Impostures, and leave the rest up to you.)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Musil23, Ulrich at Aug 25, 2005 18:47 PM
Well, I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but the Sokal hoax didn't really "demonstrate" anything. He wrote a bunch of nonsense; then falsely attributed that nonsense to "prominent French intellectuals"; and then claimed that he had thereby demonstrated "the charlatanism and nonsense" of those writers. If I write a bunch of nonsense, then falsely claim that Einstein wrote that nonsense -- does that mean I have demonstrated the "charlatanism and nonsense" of Einstein? I had thought the critical thinking cap of a scientist would be a little more active... I have repeatedly written to Sokal, one scholar to another, inviting him to debate me about the merits of the authors he pretends to have skewered -- because he repeatedly invites anybody to do so -- but he won't respond. Nevertheless, he continues to insist that nobody responds to his challenge. The "French intellectuals" that he has never read have never uttered any of the insane theses Sokal attributes to them. But if you're a "scientist," I guess you're not required to read the books you have strong opinions about. Who exactly is the "charlatan" here...?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Apr 18, 2005 02:12 AM
bwong, I already pointed out that the submissions were not read and there was no screening process, since they just wanted to collect the $400 fee. So getting nonsense accepted proved nothing. I can't understand why the blogger didn't understand this, or what his point is anyway. Each scientific field has its jargon, because it refers to things that do not exist outside the field. A good science writer can provide jargon-free summaries, but you really must understand the jargon for a deep level of understanding. Legitimate scientific journals would never be fooled in this way, since each submission is screened by several experts. The reputation of the journal is at stake so they can't afford to be careless. Nonsense would not get through the gates of a respectable science journal. Maybe in the humanities. I'm not saying all published science makes sense, just that it is not randomly-generated gibberish.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Gammon101, Bwong at Apr 18, 2005 00:52 AM
Actually, based only on David's link I am not even sure if this "World Multiconference on Systematics, Cybernetics and Informatics " is a serious scientific conference. This whole story may have actually nothing to do with jargons in computer science(as the pranksters themselves pointed out) The pranksters said they were fed up with spams soliciting submissions. It was also mentioned that the organizers demanded $400 for publishing a paper. Finally, as the organizers admitted they booked presentations without even reviewing the submissions first(that is quite different from being taken in by bogus submissions as in the case of the editors of "Social Text") That does not sound like a serious academic conference.It may be some industry sponsored BS fest for PR purposes. I know people with Ph.Ds in the hard sciences(mathematics and physics mostly) doing "reasearch" for leading finanicial institutions. From what they told me the whole thing is a charade. Their so called presentations were ripped off from first year text books and the bankers apparantly knew that too. But it doesn't matter, the Ph.ds get their fat salaries for doing nothing, meanwhile the financial instuitions get to parade their armies of "brains" to impress the share holders and the public. The money for their salaries probably is just a small fraction of the PR budget,and it is tax deductible because the expenditure is supposedly for "R&D".

Reply this comment

Person

By Vekey, Tvekey at Apr 17, 2005 17:22 PM
The pressures to advance one's carrier in the 'scientific community' namely to author and publish scientific essays in scientific journals or use in conferences resulted in a flood of this papers with the concomitant reduction in quality. One of the question is: Who has the time to read these dissertations? Apparently, at times no one, resulting in such hillarious hoaxes. Would this experience be enough to puncture some of the inflated scientific egos out there?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Rekouche, Koceilah at Apr 17, 2005 16:43 PM
And then you have the "Chomsky Bot". This software breaks down many of Chomsky's linguistics texts then rearranges them into grammatical but non-sensical paragraphs. It's hilarious because if you know nothing of linguistics it makes about as much sense as the real texts do. Of course the real ones do make sense, and are not gibberish. That is, all the technical terms have real meaning. As far as I know there exists no "bullshit detector" machine to tell us crackpot science from real science. In any serious field, a specialist can seperate the two pretty easily. http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Sex, Scatter/Gather I/O Servers, and ZNet

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Apr 17, 2005 02:13 AM
They were hoping to make $400 on each paper accepted, so obviously all were accepted without even being read. Anyway what is your point? That science can be confusing, that people can be dumb? I thought we all knew that.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (13)

Loading_border