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. Request PDF on ResearchGate | Imposturas intelectuais: algumas reflexões | in this paper I summarize some of the most relevant aspects of the so-called Sokal.
|Published (Last):||3 June 2009|
|PDF File Size:||2.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.83 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Some are delighted, some are enraged. The book has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with some interest in continental philosophy. 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.
Carlos Veloso (Translator of Imposturas Intelectuais)
Two Millennia of Mathematics: The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general Views Read Edit View history. This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat In Jacques Derrida ‘s response, “Sokal and Bricmont Aren’t Serious,” first published in Le MondeDerrida writes that the Sokal impoeturas 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.
Lacan to the Letter. This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax. Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed. 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.
Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved 25 June Event occurs at 3: Print Hardcover and Paperback. Retrieved from ” https: Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. At Whom Are We Laughing? Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont.
Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: 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 [ According to some reports, the response within the humanities was “polarized. One friend of intelecruais told me that Intelrctuais article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to.
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.
University of Michigan Press. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. Postmodernism Philosophy of science. 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, Responses imopsturas the scientific community were more supportive.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
The Knowable and the Unknowable. 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 and concepts” by writers such as Lacan and Irigaray.
Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, intelectuaiw regarding the discussion of Lacan: People have been bitterly divided.
Fashionable Nonsense – Wikipedia
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 define abuse of mathematics and physics as:. Noam Chomsky called the book “very important” and imposturras that “a lot of the so-called ‘left’ criticism [of science] seems to be pure nonsense”.
Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public University of Minnesota Press. London Review of Intelcetuais. He intelextuais there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. He calls it ridiculous intellectuais 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.
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. 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.
Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? Sokal and Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.
But a philosopher who is caught intelectuis 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 15 April