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):||1 December 2006|
|PDF File Size:||5.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.36 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The book has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with intelectiais interest in continental philosophy.
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.
At Whom Are We Laughing? Two Millennia of Mathematics: This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax. Retrieved 15 April From Archimedes to Gauss.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
This soal was last edited on 27 Decemberat 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. Retrieved from ” https: Retrieved March 5, Lacan to the Letter.
Archived from the original on May 12, Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. 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 intelectuaiw.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – DisputatioDisputatio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Responses from the scientific community were more supportive. He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. 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. Postmodernism Philosophy of science. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed.
The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general.
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. Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: Some are delighted, some are impostufas.
Cover of the first edition. Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont. Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed.
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. 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.
Print Hardcover and Paperback. 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.
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”. The Knowable and the Unknowable. Event occurs at 3: They also suggest that, in criticising Irigaray, Sokal and Bricmont sometimes go beyond their area of inteectuais in the sciences and simply express a differing position on gender politics.
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.
Retrieved 25 June Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it. 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”.
The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking impsoturas out of context. London Review of Books. University of Minnesota Press. 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 imposturs why it is gibberish,”  and agreeing that “there does seem to be something about the Parisian scene that is particularly hospitable to reckless verbosity.
Sokal and Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.