Sokal didn't debunk "Theory" by arguments. He let the supposed guardians of the field debunk it themselves. So there is nothing to 'cite': the fact that the editors of Social Text took 'Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' seriously speaks for itself.
Right but you're missing the point: Sokal never wanted to debunk Theory. He just wanted to show that it needed better peer review practices. So according to Sokal, we should still do Theory, we should just talk to scientists before we make scientific claims within our Theory.
if you can say with a straight face that Butler's ideas are "true" - assertions, or some types of assertions, can be true or untrue,
It is a basic claim of almost all logic that assertions can be true or false.
but it's not really a property that ideas can have
I have no idea why you believe this. This claim is certainly not one held by any large number of philosophers.
- while implying that the number of people who can understand these ideas is irrelevant (maybe if almost no-one can understand your ideas then you just really suck at explaining them?) or that the quality of Butler's writing doesn't matter.
Well I'm right. You have no criticism of Butler's ideas. I'm not going to argue with you about the quality of their writing. And you certainly have no right to criticize them when you avowedly don't understand them!
