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.

Author: Vik Zulushura
Country: Syria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 19 August 2005
Pages: 393
PDF File Size: 4.61 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.31 Mb
ISBN: 552-5-26195-308-5
Downloads: 1471
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Majora

University of Michigan Press. Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed.

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. 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.

Fashionable Nonsense – Wikipedia

Views Read Edit View history. 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.

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. Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly. University of Minnesota Press.


Carlos Veloso (Translator of Imposturas Intelectuais)

London Review of Books. 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 intelectuaos by writers such as Lacan and Irigaray.

Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed.

Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:.

Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? 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 ijtelectuais gender politics. People have been bitterly divided. Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself.

Postmodernism Philosophy of science.

According to some reports, the response within the humanities intelectuaid “polarized. Two Millennia of Mathematics: Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: Event occurs at 3: One friend of mine told me that Sokal’s article came up in a meeting of im;osturas left reading group that he belongs to. 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 imposhuras, 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.


By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public 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”. He then writes of his hope that in the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at imposguras level of the issues involved.

This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax.

Alan Sokal

At Whom Are We Laughing? Sokal and Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.

The book gives a chapter to each of the above-mentioned ontelectuais, “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 15 April Responses from the scientific community were more supportive.

Retrieved March 5, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 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. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: