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):||18 April 2007|
|PDF File Size:||17.77 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.28 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: Responses from the scientific community were more supportive. Retrieved March 5, Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont.
Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:. 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.
University of Michigan Press. This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax. He then writes inttelectuais his hope that in the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at the level of the issues involved.
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. The Knowable and the Unknowable.
Cover of the first edition. 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 imposturzs issue has been ruined for a broad public forum that deserves better. Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly.
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse intelecthais Science Cover of the first edition. 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 soal concepts” by writers such as Lacan and Irigaray.
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.
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. 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”. At Whom Are We Laughing?
From Archimedes to Gauss. Perhaps he is sokl when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? Retrieved 15 April Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed. The stated goal of the book is inteledtuais to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general The book has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with some interest in continental philosophy. According to some reports, the response within the humanities was “polarized. Some are delighted, some are enraged.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – DisputatioDisputatio
London Review of Books. 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.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Postmodernism Philosophy of science. Event occurs at 3: This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat 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”.
Carlos Veloso (Translator of Imposturas Intelectuais)
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.
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. Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it.
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. He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response.