Imposturas Intelectuais (Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont). 2 likes. Book. The Reception of the Sokal Affair in France—”Pomo” Hunting or Intellectual Mccarthyism?: A Propos of Impostures Intellectuelles by A. Sokal and J. Bricmont. Back to Alan Sokal’s Physics Department Page (see also old page) .. , Trimestre 2, ); Review of Imposturas Intelectuais, by Sara.
|Published (Last):||13 February 2004|
|PDF File Size:||14.67 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.40 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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. 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.
The book has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with some interest in continental philosophy.
The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ Retrieved 25 June Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it. 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 soal 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.
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. But a philosopher who is caught inntelectuais 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.
Retrieved from ” https: From Archimedes to Gauss.
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. 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. Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:.
Two Millennia of Mathematics: 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.
Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed.
Fashionable Nonsense – Wikipedia
Lacan to the Letter. Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Event occurs at 3: University of Minnesota Press. Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Sokal and Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs. This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax.
The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context.
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 15 April 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. 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. Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments.
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: 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.
Responses from the scientific community were more supportive.
Carlos Veloso (Translator of Imposturas Intelectuais)
This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly.
London Review of Books. Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont. Postmodernism Philosophy of science. According to some reports, the response within the humanities was “polarized. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public 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.
Retrieved March 5, 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”. Archived from the original on May 12, The stated impposturas of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general Cover of the first edition.
The Knowable and the Unknowable.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. One friend inyelectuais mine told me that Impostuuras article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to.
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.