Pretending that criticisms of science are invalidated by postmodernism or poststructuralism is a convenient way for Sokal and his backers to pretend that what they are defending is not their own exclusive rights to a turf that the public has good reason to monitor as closely as possible. But this is not to say that the hoax offered no grounds for amusement other than gloating along with Sokal's barely concealed belligerence. Points were raised in the ensuing debate that can certainly divide people of intelligence and good will. The example that hits closest to home is the question of culture, or of a politics that is specifically cultural. The Sokal affair, many feel, administered to cultural politics a well-deserved comeuppance.
Culture is important only if the scientific worldview leaves a lot out.
This is one reason why literary critics and other humanists have been inclined toward skepticism about science ever since the modern concept of culture was first defined by the Romantics and Matthew Arnold. In other words, today's anti-science skepticism in the academy is not an innovation, nor does it stem directly from French theory or multiculturalism. But it is indeed a problem. Eager to return to their own disciplinary reason for being, students of culture have trouble controlling their propensity to generate mindlessly repetitive attacks on culture's supposed others, whether they are called science or reason or truth. A primary concern with culture has sometimes meant a certain hesitation in talking about economic inequality or in doing something about legislation.