The Reception of the Sokal Affair in France—”Pomo” Hunting or Intellectual Mccarthyism?: A Propos of Impostures Intellectuelles by A. Sokal and J. Bricmont. Imposturas Intelectuais (Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont). 2 likes. Book. Papers by Alan Sokal on the “Social Text Affair”; Sokal-Bricmont book . São Paulo, Jornal de Resenhas, 11 abril ); “Descomposturas intelectuais”, ” Imposturas e fantasias”, by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (Folha de.
|Published (Last):||23 March 2004|
|PDF File Size:||11.61 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.81 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Alan Sokal’s writings on science, philosophy and culture
Print Hardcover and Paperback. From Archimedes to Gauss. While Fink and Plotnitsky question Sokal and Bricmont’s right to say what definitions of scientific terms are correct, cultural theorists and literary critics Andrew Milner and Jeff Browitt acknowledge that right, seeing it as “defend[ing] their disciplines against what they saw as a misappropriation of key terms and concepts” by writers such as Lacan and Irigaray. The book was published in French inand in English in ; the English impostuas were revised for greater relevance to debates in the English-speaking world.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
Archived from the original on May 12, Some are delighted, some are enraged. Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: Lacan to the Letter. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition.
Bruce Fink offers a critique in his book Lacan to the Letterwhere he accuses Sokal and Bricmont of demanding that “serious writing” do nothing other than “convey clear meanings”.
University of Minnesota Press. He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. But a philosopher who is caught equating the erectile organ to the square root of minus one has, for my money, blown his credentials when it comes to things that I don’t know anything about. Responses from the scientific community were more supportive. Sokal and Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.
However, with regard to the second sense, which Plotnisky describes by stating that “all imaginary and complex numbers are, by definition, irrational,”  mathematicians agree with Sokal and Bricmont in not taking complex numbers as irrational.
Postmodernism Philosophy of science. Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly.
Views Read Edit View history. Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments.
Fashionable Nonsense – Wikipedia
Retrieved 15 April University of Michigan Press. People have been bitterly divided.
Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Limiting her considerations to physics, science hystorian Mara Beller  maintained that it was not entirely fair to blame contemporary postmodern philosophers for drawing nonsensical conclusions from quantum physics which they did dosince many such conclusions were drawn by some of the leading intelechuais physicists themselves, such imlosturas Bohr or Intelectuxis when they ventured into philosophy.
Event occurs at 3: The book gives a chapter to each of the above-mentioned authors, “the tip of the iceberg” of a group of intellectual practices that can be described as “mystification, deliberately obscure language, confused thinking and the misuse of scientific concepts. Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:. The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general According to some imposguras, the response within the humanities was “polarized.
Rather, they aim to draw attention to the abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics, subjects they’ve devoted their careers to studying and teaching.
He then writes of his inttelectuais that in the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at the level of the issues involved.
One friend of mine told me that Sokal’s article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to.
London Review of Books. According to New York Review of Books editor Barbara Epsteinwho was delighted by Sokal’s hoaxwithin the humanities the response to the book was bitterly divided, with some delighted and some enraged;  in some reading groupsreaction was polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal. The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Imppsturas [ Noam Chomsky called the book “very important” and said that “a lot of the so-called ‘left’ criticism [of science] seems to be pure nonsense”.