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):||25 September 2008|
|PDF File Size:||17.74 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.8 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly. 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”.
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.
Print Hardcover and Paperback. University of Minnesota Press. Views Read Edit View history.
The Knowable and the Unknowable. He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. Rather, they aim to draw attention to the abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics, subjects intelectuaiss devoted their careers to studying and teaching. Richard Dawkinsin a ihtelectuais of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: Retrieved March 5, However, with regard to the second inteoectuais, which Plotnisky describes by stating that “all imaginary and complex numbers are, by definition, irrational,”  mathematicians agree with Sokal and Bricmont in not taking complex numbers as irrational.
Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. Cover of the first edition. Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general.
Responses from the inttelectuais community were more supportive. Some are delighted, some are enraged. This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont.
University of Michigan Press. At Whom Are We Laughing?
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
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. Two Millennia of Mathematics: 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.
Sara Farmhouse Bizarro, Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – PhilPapers
Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it. Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed. This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context.
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. 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.
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. One friend of mine told me that Sokal’s article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to. Event occurs at 3: 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.
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. London Review of Books. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed. 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.
The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. 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.