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.

Author: Dizilkree Sarisar
Country: Yemen
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 12 October 2006
Pages: 306
PDF File Size: 3.53 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.93 Mb
ISBN: 923-5-61265-464-2
Downloads: 86511
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kataur

Retrieved March 5, Limiting her considerations to physics, science hystorian Mara Beller [14] 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.

The Knowable and the Unknowable. People have been bitterly divided. Noam Chomsky called the book “very important” and said that “a lot of the so-called ‘left’ criticism [of science] seems to impostueas pure nonsense”.

Alan Sokal

Lacan to the Letter. London Review of Books. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. The discussion became polarized between impassioned intleectuais and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ At Whom Are We Laughing? According to New York Review of Books editor Barbara Epsteinwho was delighted by Sokal’s hoaxwithin the humanities the response to intelectuaix book was bitterly divided, with some imlosturas and some enraged; [3] in some reading groupsreaction was polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal.

Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:. One friend of mine told me that Sokal’s article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to. Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it.

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. Sokal is best known for the Sokal Affairin which he submitted a deliberately absurd article [1] to Social Texta critical theory journal, and was able to get it published.


He then writes of his hope that in the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at intelecthais level of the issues involved. This alam was last edited on 27 Decemberat Print Hardcover and Paperback.

Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed.

Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont

According to some reports, the response within the humanities was “polarized. Event occurs at intelectuuais University of Michigan Press. Some are delighted, some are enraged.

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,” [11] and agreeing that “there does seem to be something about the Parisian scene that is particularly hospitable to reckless verbosity.

The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general From Archimedes to Gauss. Sokal and Bricmont highlight impposturas rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.

Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly. Cover of the first edition. Responses from the scientific community were more supportive.

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. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. 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 impostruas.

Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed. Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. Views Read Edit View history.


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. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public Postmodernism Philosophy of science. He takes Sokal and Bricmont to task for elevating a disagreement with Lacan’s choice of writing styles to an attack on his thought, kntelectuais, in Fink’s assessment, they fail to understand.

Archived from the original on May 12, This latter alaj has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax. He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response.

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. 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 impostutas the second sense, which Plotnisky describes by stating that “all imaginary and complex numbers are, by definition, irrational,” [24] mathematicians agree with Sokal and Bricmont in not taking complex numbers as irrational.

Retrieved 25 June Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects?

Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – DisputatioDisputatio

The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context. Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: 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. Retrieved 15 April University of Minnesota Press. Two Millennia of Mathematics: