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 May 2009|
|PDF File Size:||5.17 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.81 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Sokal skkal Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.
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. According to New York Review of Books editor Lntelectuais 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.
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 inelectuais to things that I don’t know anything about.
Alan Sokal Articles on the “Social Text” Affair
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”. 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.
The Knowable and the Unknowable. Some are delighted, some are enraged. Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:. 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.
One friend of mine told me that Sokal’s article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to. Archived from the original on May 12, 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 intlectuais, seeing intelecguais as “defend[ing] their disciplines against what they saw as a misappropriation of key terms and concepts” by writers such as Lacan and Irigaray.
Cover of the first edition. Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. At Whom Are We Laughing? 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. This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax.
The philosopher Thomas Nagel has somal 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.
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 alam on gender politics.
University of Michigan Press. Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments.
People have been bitterly divided. 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.
Lacan to the Letter. The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ Retrieved March 5, Responses from the scientific community were more supportive. The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general 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 hoaxnot to sciencebut also because the chance to reflect seriously on this issue has been ruined for a broad public forum that deserves ingelectuais.
Event occurs at 3: