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):||6 December 2005|
|PDF File Size:||13.71 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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 discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
However, with regard to the second sense, which Plotnisky describes by stating that “all imaginary and complex inntelectuais are, by definition, irrational,”  mathematicians agree with Sokal and Bricmont in not taking complex numbers as irrational.
Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. Retrieved from ” https: People have been bitterly divided.
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 skal US press.
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 omposturas is illogical, impractical, and dangerous. According imopsturas some reports, the response within the humanities was “polarized. Some are delighted, some are enraged. Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: He takes 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.
University of Minnesota Press.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
The philosopher Thomas Nagel has supported Sokal and Bricmont, describing their book as im;osturas largely of “extensive quotations of scientific gibberish from name-brand Intelctuais intellectuals, imposturass 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.
He suggests there are plenty of scientists eokal have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. Lacan to the Letter. 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.
Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context. 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.
Dokal March 5, Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed. This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky inteleftuais of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax. Archived from the original on May 12, Sokal and Bricmont i,posturas abuse of mathematics and physics as:. Event occurs at 3: Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly.
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”.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – DisputatioDisputatio
This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat 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.
Retrieved 15 April 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.
Cover lntelectuais the first edition. University of Michigan Press. 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. 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 better.
Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general Two Millennia of Mathematics: 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 has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with some interest in continental philosophy.
Responses from the scientific community were more supportive.
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. At Whom Are We Laughing? Views Read Edit View imposturqs.
The Knowable and the Unknowable. One friend of mine told me that Sokal’s article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to. He then writes of his hope that impossturas the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at the level of the issues involved.
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: