Well, I think there are a couple colliding issues here.
1 - Social groups tend to use markers to indicate "in group" and "out of group" persons. For some groups, that is clothing, for some groups it is jargon/slang/language. It could be body language: you'll recognize a cop or a Marine even if they've been out of the service for 40 years.
2 - Some guys behave as if "I don't know" is such a *wrong* thing to say, that their wiener will fall off if they say it out loud.
3 - Some people like to make fun of others. Like Sokal.
4 - "Fake it till you make it" is a very common motto. Common enough that some of its users have hypnotized themselves into believing it.
5 - The urge to belong is a very strong impulse. Many groups will create bonding rituals, to enforce who belongs and the belongingness. Might be golf, or in the case of one poster on the JoS forum, playing Worlds of Warcraft.
A - Words mean different things to different groups. For example: the word "theory" means something totally different to a scientist as it does to a non-scientist.
B - If someone uses the wrong words, or wrong regalia, they can be spotted as an out-group person immediately (and shunned as necessary). For example: wearing a suit when all your co-workers wear polo shirts and khakis (or vice versa).
With 1&5, you're going to get people trying to "belong" and trying to use the jargon/slang/language of the group, even when they don't understand what the words really mean (compounding with 2).
With 4, you'll see people trying to determine the rules for using words by observing how others use them (which is how children learn language). Sometimes groups deliberately intend to make the rules impossible to discern. Like in postmodernism, or bush's politics: what is said isn't what it really means; you need "spin" to translate it into english. Some postmodernists believe that postmodernism cannot be described in english, it has to be in french only. Sort of "the tao which can be described is not the real tao." Or, more likely, they don't know either, and asking them to explain what color the emperor's new clothes are, and they get angry.
"I suppose that it might be argued that articles in physics journals are also incomprehensible to the uninitiated. But physicists are forced to use a technical language, the language of mathematics. Within this limitation, we try to be clear, and when we fail we do not expect our readers to confuse obscurity with profundity. It never was true that only a dozen people could understand Einstein's papers on general relativity, but if it had been true, it would have been a failure of Einstein's, not a mark of his brilliance.
Part of Sokal's hoax was in his description of developments in physics. Much of it was quite accurate, but it was heavily adulterated with howlers, most of which would have been detected by any undergraduate physics major."
My response is to treat all posts starring Chris as fiction, and to reply "in character" with the fiction. It *is* possible that he believes what he says (like the joke, what is the difference between a priest and a con-man? The con-man knows what he is selling is false). However, he strings so many buzzwords around that his text is remarkably content-free. Like Sokal's hoax. Could it be real? It sounds vaguely real, like Sokal's hoax did to non-physicists, or Intelligent Design sounds to people with little-to-no scientific education. Could it be a hoax? It reads fake enough to fail a smell test, especially when people with direct, expert knowledge in the area take a whiff. Just like Sokal's Hoax.http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/weinberg.html