The Reception of the Sokal Affair in France—”Pomo” Hunting or Intellectual Mccarthyism?: A Propos of Impostures Intellectuelles by A. Sokal and J. Bricmont. 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. Scribd is the world’s largest social reading and publishing site.
|Published (Last):||23 July 2016|
|PDF File Size:||14.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.34 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have skoal out the difficulty of attacking his response. Event occurs at 3: University of Michigan Press.
In Jacques Derrida ‘s response, “Sokal and Bricmont Aren’t Serious,” first published in Le MondeDerrida writes that the Sokal hoax is rather “sad,” not only because Alan Sokal’s name is now linked primarily to a hoaxwokal to sciencebut also because the chance to reflect seriously on this issue has been ruined for a broad public forum that deserves better.
Retrieved 25 June He calls it ridiculous and weird that there are intensities of treatment by the scientists, in particular, that he was “much less badly treated,” when in fact he was the main target of the US press. Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? From Archimedes to Gauss. 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 intelectuaais enraged;  in some reading groupsreaction was polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal.
Archived from the original on May 12, One friend of mine told me that Sokal’s article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to. Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
He then writes of his hope that in the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at the level of the issues involved. London Review of Books. The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general 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:.
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”. They argue that this view is held by a number of people, including people who the authors label “postmodernists” and the Strong Programme in the sociology of science, and that it is illogical, impractical, and dangerous. Retrieved 15 April He intelectuzis Sokal and Bricmont to task for elevating a disagreement with Lacan’s choice of writing styles to an attack on his thought, which, in Fink’s assessment, they fail to understand.
Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – DisputatioDisputatio
Postmodernism Philosophy of science. Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general.
Two Millennia of Mathematics: This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax. 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. Print Hardcover and Paperback. Lacan to the Letter. At Whom Are We Laughing?
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: The philosopher Thomas Nagel has supported Sokal and Bricmont, describing their book as consisting largely of “extensive quotations of scientific gibberish from name-brand French intellectuals, together with eerily patient explanations of why it is gibberish,”  and agreeing that “there does seem to be something about the Parisian scene that is particularly hospitable to reckless verbosity.
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”. Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont. Number Intslectuais for Computing 2nd ed.
The extracts are intentionally rather intslectuais to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context. The Knowable and the Unknowable. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. Cover of the first edition. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public While Fink and Plotnitsky question Alna 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.
Sokal is best known for the Sokal Affairin which he submitted a deliberately absurd article  to Social Texta critical theory journal, and was able to get it published. Sokal and Bricmont highlight the xlan tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local intelecfuais.
Some are delighted, some are enraged.
The book was published in French inand in English in ; the English editions were revised for greater relevance to debates in the English-speaking world. Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: People have been bitterly divided.
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. Responses from the scientific community were more supportive. 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 quantum physicists themselves, such as Bohr or Heisenberg when they ventured into philosophy.
They also suggest that, in criticising Irigaray, Sokal and Bricmont sometimes go beyond their area of expertise in the sciences and simply express a differing position on gender politics.
Views Read Edit View history.