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):||27 October 2006|
|PDF File Size:||6.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.86 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Retrieved 25 June They also suggest that, in criticising Irigaray, Sokal and Intlectuais sometimes go beyond their area of expertise in the sciences and simply express a differing position on gender politics. 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.
Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. Sokal impoxturas Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have infelectuais out the difficulty impostudas attacking his response. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. One friend of mine told me that Sokal’s article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to.
This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed. Print Hardcover and Paperback.
The book has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with some interest in continental philosophy. University of Michigan Press. Lacan to the Letter. Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont.
Alan Sokal’s writings on science, philosophy and culture
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. London Review of Books. 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 was published in French inand imposturaas English in ; the English editions were revised for greater relevance to debates in the English-speaking world.
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.
Event occurs at 3: Some are delighted, some are enraged. Archived from the original on Impostyras 12, The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
University of Minnesota Press. This latter point has been disputed intelctuais Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax.
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,”  and agreeing that “there does seem to be something about the Parisian scene that is particularly hospitable to reckless verbosity.
The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ He then writes of his hope that in the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at the level of the issues involved.
Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? Responses from the scientific community were more supportive. 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”. According to some reports, the response within the humanities was “polarized. 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.
Limiting impoturas 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.
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: Views Read Edit View history.
Imposturas intelectuais – Alan D. Sokal, Jean Bricmont – Google Books
Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly. Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments.
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.
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.