This. The original Sokal paper made its point by stating that there is no such thing as objective physical reality; i.e., that claim is so obviously false that it should have overridden all other concerns. But as was pointed out at the time, an academic editor may refer a submission for peer review if there are individual points they consider potentially worthy, but they’re not qualified to judge. And a reviewer is going to assume a submission is in good faith as a professional courtesy.

I’ll freely admit that there are any number of academic fields that seem to have their heads up their own asses, but the whole point is that you have to be an expert to judge. In my field, I’m fascinated by “prank” programming languages such as one that is entirely whitespace characters (spaces, tabs, carriage returns); of course any outsider would view this as ridiculous, and likely dismiss as ridiculous the central concept of a Turing machine.

The Sokal Squared affair immediately seemed to me like the equivalent of when a mathematician or physicist dismisses all social sciences and humanities, but happening at an obfuscated level. The “Grievance Studies” Hoax Does Not Reveal the Academic Scandal That It Claims