by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont IMPOSTURAS INTELECTUALES .. tamos asombrados e inquietos por la evolución intelectual que han ex-. Wiki for Collaborative Studies of Arts, Media and Humanities. Scribd is the world’s largest social reading and publishing site.
|Published (Last):||10 November 2007|
|PDF File Size:||18.46 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.59 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I mean it felt like Brixmont was drowning in it—give me some air please. View all 8 comments. Aug 07, Leila T. With brjcmont said, on to the book itself. Feb 11, Worthless Bum rated it really liked it Shelves: Sokal discusses Feyeraband and his anarchic views on scientific method in discourse on the plausibility of epistemic relativism.
And as feminist thinkers have repeatedly pointed out, in the present culture this contamination is overwhelmingly capitalist, patriarchal, and militaristic: Sylt For the nth time yesterday I thought maybe there was something there after all, so I went back and tried reading some Deleuze. But after a few chapters, this whole exercise started to get tiring and dull.
From Archimedes to Gauss. Stemming from the like of Lacan, Deleuze, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Irigaray, Latour, Virilio and co to name just the ones targeted here there One will never be grateful enough to Sokal and Bricmont for pointing fingers towards a naked emperor. More sense is in these pages than most undergraduate arts degrees. One of the authors, Alan Sokal, wrote intelcetuais paper that mimics these types of scholars as a hoax, published in the postmodernist journal Social Textwhich is included as appendix A, followed by some further comments in appendix B.
Sokal set out to reveal how one aspect of postmodernism was fraudulent, and in doing so seemed to invariably reduce that particular style of thinking and writing to what it truly is: In the quoted excerpts from the PoMos, it always turns out that they don’t understand the technical concepts that are using, or that the use of them is gratuitous, that the comparisons and analogies made between a math or science concept and something in literature or sociology is not adequately justified.
As you can see from my comments I found other qualms other than what the authors provided, so in this case it was a little fun. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers.
Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science
Marx’s tautological economic theories have gone the same way. Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed. If a reader is not convinced of the absurdity of the postmodern examples within the first two sentences of a quotation, they probably so completely lack of the discriminating facility that another twenty lntelectuais will not do them any more good.
Tell a lie once! It will reassure you that incoherent sentences ala shameless displays of false erudition–although extremely humorous–cannot change the fact that reason, evidence, and the truth do matter even if rich, white men believe in them too.
Imposturas intelectuais – Alan D. Sokal, Jean Bricmont – Google Books
They gladly published the article, and then Ramachandran told them, Hahaha, that was just a joke! View all 4 comments. Les grandes personnes sont decidement bien bizarres, se dit le petit prince. These excerpts are painful to read. To add to that, there is the incessant theoretical backpedaling and earnest apologetics that are such a characteristic reaction to a critique of a particular philosopher’s thought. A year later, Sokal collaborated with Jean Bricmont, a Belgian theoretical physicist, on a book covering the research and motivation for the Iimposturas Text essay entitled Fashionable Nonsense: In it Sokal wrote, “I confess that I am an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class.
He was trying to make a very serious point: Indeed, to someone with our cast of mind, reading Fashionable Nonsense provides essentially the same experience as just reading Lacan, Kristeva, Irigaray, et. Lacan to the Letter. Such reading, beyond its denunciation of ignorant and incompetent nonsense, serves on the contrary as a warning against that so called ‘postmodern Zeitgeist’, a dangerous and irresponsible way of thinking in a world prey to obscurantism, fanaticism and superstition.
They provide numerous examples on mathematical concepts.
This book basically picks up where the parody left off, displaying several examples of articles which abuse science in bizarre and sometimes meaningless ways. Many literary critics seem to judge an idea good not due to its merit, but its novelty and outrageousness.
Fashionable Nonsense – Wikipedia
Apr impostuuras, Brett Williams rated it it was amazing. 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.
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 imposhuras what they saw as a misappropriation of key terms and concepts” by writers such as Lacan and Irigaray. But to understand what this book is, you also have to understand what it is not.
In sum, post-modern theories are the epitome of the academic foolishness described by Pope: But of course if everyone had this cast of mind, then these authors would not have the renown they do.