| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Atom collider rap is a YouTube smash | Main | Gaming Evolves »

September 02, 2008

Stanley Fish on Hoaxes

From his blog Think Again at the New York Times:

Stanley_fishLast week the New York Post’s Page Six picked up on a story that had been widely circulated on the blogosphere. The magazine Wine Spectator was the victim of a hoax when it came out that its “award of excellence” had been given to a restaurant that did not exist. Robin Goldstein, a wine critic who said that he wanted to expose the lack of any foundation for many food and wine awards, had submitted an application that included the menu and wine list of a fictitious restaurant he named Osteria L’Intrepido. Goldstein revealed the hoax within a week or so of the announced award and declared that what he had done proved that “the level of scrutiny” that accompanies such awards is “insufficient.”

Stung by the adverse publicity his magazine was receiving, Executive Editor Thomas Matthews fought back with an account of what he termed “the actual facts of the matter” on the Wine Spectator web site. He said that “we do not claim to visit every restaurant in our Awards program” or “review the restaurant as a whole.” Rather, “[we evaluate] the content, accuracy and presentation of wine lists.”

Thomas then detailed the efforts of the magazine to verify the facts. The restaurant was called (it was never reached); a Google search revealed an “actual address” on a street in Milan, a site featuring the restaurant’s menu, and reviews by what are now known to be fictitious customers. Goldstein claimed that the wine list he had confected contained vintages that Wine Spectator itself had criticized in previous issues. Thomas retorted that of the 256 wines listed only 15 scored below the mark the magazine considered a standard.

More here.

Posted by Abbas Raza at 05:48 AM | Permalink

Comments

"No, the moral is that a hoax that is sufficiently and painstakingly elaborated can deceive anyone if the conditions are favorable. This means that the success of a hoax reflects on the skill of the hoaxer and says nothing about the substantive views of those who were fooled by it."

But isn't it clear that a hoax successfully perpetrated upon a bestower of awards makes the whole enterprise of their awarding meaningless?

Posted by: Jim | Sep 2, 2008 8:20:16 AM

My fellow comrade in English Professorhood Stanley Fish once again defends the editors of Social Text, and once again I think he's wrong.

Here's the money quote:
"The question — one that applies to the Wine Spectator controversy — is how rigorous a scrutiny should editors of journals and magazines be expected to conduct? In this case, the question is complicated by the fact that one of the editors of the journal Sokal deceived was a colleague of his at N.Y.U., albeit from another department. If someone down the hall or in the next building is sending you something to consider, you don’t start by wondering if the submission is on the up and up; like the editors of Wine Spectator, but with even more justification, you might assume that what you have before you is bona fide."

This may be true, but the issue wasn't that they didn't think it was a hoax. It was that they didn't think it was garbage. Editors shouldn't have to worry if articles are sent in good faith. But they should apply rigorous standards of judgment to what they receive. They shouldn't in other words print whatever flatters their epistemological predilections (not to mention their professional egos; Sokal was sharp enough to gratuitously cite the work of the editorial board).

Whatever one thinks of Sokal's motives, the greater blame must fall on the journal itself, which should have just apologized and moved on. As they circled their wagons and defended themselves, the editorial board did real damage to the public reputation to the humanities, damage from which we haven't yet recovered.

Posted by: Jonathan | Sep 2, 2008 10:46:05 AM

When I read Sokal, I agreed with him. When I read Fish, I agreed with him. Now, you seem to be saying something that makes sense to me. You can't all be right. Clearly, I need to think about all this a little more. I seem to have confused myself! Stay tuned :-)

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Sep 2, 2008 1:38:30 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD ADVERTISING


3QD on Twitter


Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google


Recent Comments

A on Tragic hero: Laurie Taylor interviews Terry Eagleton

John Ballard on Happy Bastille Day

giotto on Tragic hero: Laurie Taylor interviews Terry Eagleton

David Schneider on the consititution as work of art

fred lapides on unsticking the conservative brain

J. Hawkins on Happy Bastille Day

Elatia Harris on Happy Bastille Day

Manas Shaikh on 'What's exciting is that writing has become a weapon'

fred lapides on The Recession Is Over!

Carlos on A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain

Karthik on India, China and the polemics of the East

Elatia Harris on The Israeli thought-police is here

Lambness on A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain

Fill on A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain

Lambness on A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain

Justin on Desire Paths: Reading, Memory and Inscription

Cyrus Hall on The Israeli thought-police is here

Carlos on The Israeli thought-police is here

Richard Sweeton on A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain

Cyrus Hall on The Israeli thought-police is here

Andrew on A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain

aguy109 on The Israeli thought-police is here

Daniel Rourke on Desire Paths: Reading, Memory and Inscription

Dave Ranning on India, China and the polemics of the East

Bob on The Israeli thought-police is here


Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.


The 3QD Prizes

Logo designed by Vicki Winters

Subscribe to this blog's feed