Crikey pushed the button to publish on the Windschuttle hoax over an hour ago now, and a few things have happened.
. Mainstream media are following up.
. CSIRO has been in touch. hey may have comment later, which I will post as soon as received. Just to be clear: the claim that CSIRO had plans to insert human genes into food crops is BOGUS.
. Windschuttle has published his response on the Quadrant site. He strongly suggests that I am the hoaxer. I am not. (Repeat as often as necessary).
And I need to correct one small part of today’s story. The paragraph reading:
Comparing this to the Sokal hoax, Windschuttle made the point that Sokal had been frank about his role in the hoax, and that in that case all the footnotes provided with the article were genuine.
Should have said ….”all the footnotes provided with the article were bogus.”
My apologies. The conversation was close to deadline, but that’s no excuse.
That’s it for now.
2 Comments
That’s an interesting correction, because what was so brilliant about the Sokal Hoax was that most quotes Sokal used were actually genuine and I suspect that every single one of the works he cited was an actual work. That is what made the parody so devastating – he exposed the babble pomo philosophers used as just that – babble.
The Sokal Hoax was different in another respect – he didn’t conceal his identity at any stage of the process and was prepared to defend what he did in public, using his own name.
If the hoaxer really wants to take Windshuttle down a notch, it would be more credible to do so in public with his/her own name and reputation at stake.
The Yes men would be proud, no doubt.