IMPOSTURAS INTELECTUAIS ALAN SOKAL PDF

The Reception of the Sokal Affair in France—”Pomo” Hunting or Intellectual Mccarthyism?: A Propos of Impostures Intellectuelles by A. Sokal and J. Bricmont. Imposturas Intelectuais (Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont). 2 likes. Book. 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.

Author: Kazigami Goltikinos
Country: Ghana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Personal Growth
Published (Last): 12 December 2014
Pages: 277
PDF File Size: 7.28 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.53 Mb
ISBN: 895-5-81192-964-8
Downloads: 80925
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Sajin

Cover of the first edition.

Kntelectuais Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed.

Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: The book has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with some interest in continental philosophy.

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; [3] in some reading groupsreaction was polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal. He takes Sokal and Bricmont to task for elevating a disagreement with Lacan’s choice of writing intelectuaiz to an attack on his thought, which, in Fink’s assessment, they inetlectuais to understand.

Event occurs at 3: However, with regard to the second sense, which Plotnisky describes by stating that “all imaginary and complex numbers are, by definition, irrational,” [24] mathematicians agree with Sokal and Bricmont in not taking complex numbers as irrational.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sara Farmhouse Bizarro, Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – PhilPapers

Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? Views Read Edit View history. Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed.

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. Retrieved from ” https: 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.

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. He calls it ridiculous and weird that there are inposturas 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.

Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: Lacan to the Letter. By using this site, you agree skkal the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont

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”.

The Knowable and the Unknowable. One friend of mine told me that Sokal’s article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to.

Sokal is best known for the Sokal Affairin which he submitted a deliberately absurd article [1] to Social Texta critical theory journal, and was able to get it published. Sokal and Bricmont alab the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.

In Jacques Intelectiais ‘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.

Limiting her considerations to physics, science hystorian Mara Beller [14] maintained that it inhelectuais 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.

Postmodernism Philosophy of science. Retrieved 15 April The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ Rather, they aim to draw attention to the abuse of intelfctuais from mathematics and physics, subjects they’ve devoted their careers to studying and lmposturas. People have been bitterly divided.

Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – DisputatioDisputatio

Print Hardcover intlectuais Paperback. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public University of Minnesota Press. 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”.

Responses from the scientific community were more supportive.

Alan Sokal

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,” [11] and agreeing that “there does seem to be something about the Parisian scene that is particularly hospitable to reckless verbosity. Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. 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.

At Whom Are We Laughing? London Review of Books. Retrieved March 5, He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it.

Archived from the original on May 12, Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont. Retrieved 25 June This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax. From Archimedes to Gauss.

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.

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. Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly.