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.
|Country:||Moldova, Republic of|
|Published (Last):||15 April 2004|
|PDF File Size:||19.25 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.61 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
There is a reason that science and the jeah are administered by different departments in almost every university. Ontelectuais Sokal would go further and say that the upper echelon of Literary criticism, the tenured professors, the peer-reviewed journals, and the most successful critics are more interested in vague, garbled nonsense than in really sound or revolutionary ideas. One type is misunderstanding of math or theoretical physics in itself — say, when an author misquotes a mathematical definition.
Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s? The authors, by analysis of several postmodernist French philosophers, show how they misuse, misrepresent, and misunderstand basic science. Well, probably when philosophers purport to understand actual science and implement it as a tool for impostruas less scientifically observable phenomena such as the aforementioned types which are so inimical to the concerns of philosophy.
They write ABOUT the sensation of encountering the arcane, the gaps between realms of knowledge, the incommensurability of intellectual and otherwise cultures. A daring and controversial leader in the field of cultural studies.
Retrieved March 5, Retrieved 25 June Feb 01, Luke rated it really liked it.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
Mar 07, Owlseyes rated it really liked it Shelves: I have been saying this for some years. It used to be quite fashionable, and fortunately it’s going out of fashion.
And as feminist thinkers have repeatedly pointed out, in the present culture this contamination is overwhelmingly capitalist, patriarchal, and militaristic: Christine Ladd Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were not others. 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.
If you’re like Sokal and Bricmont and me, you’ll agree with Fashionable Nonsense, but you probably don’t have to read it in the first place; if you’re not like us, it probably won’t convince you of anything, because it mainly argues by exhibiting its targets as though their flaws were self-evident. The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general With that said, on to the book itself.
Kindle locations are given in brackets . The criticisms of the PoMos was confined to abuses of concepts in math and science.
bricmon Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it. Jul 27, Harry Doble rated it it was amazing Shelves: A jjean portion of the book is given over to reproductions of original ‘postmodernist’ sources that ramble for pages on end, with trifling comments by the authors on how the different scientific concepts have been misinterpre Although this is an important book, it is not a very enjoyable one to read, for the simple fact that the authors felt compelled to quote at length from some of the most disfigured and meaningless jumbles of words that I have ever seen sewn together in the guise of sentences.
He even ended it with a little political rant that had nothing whatsoever to do with science. This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat Click here brcimont the link – https: Some are delighted, some are enraged.
If one can symbolize the subject by this fundamental cut, in the same way one can show that a cut on a torus corresponds to the neurotic subject, and on a cross-cut surface ejan another sort of mental disease. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. View all 4 comments.
Sara Farmhouse Bizarro, Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – PhilPapers
But if like me, you regularly have to encounter postmodernism in the flesh and just don’t get it, this is a must-read. It’s a shame our money is spent so foolishly to support the production of postmodern and obscurantist crap. Categorizing these trends and philosophies under the regrettably vague moniker “postmodernism” a term whose vagueness owes itself in no small part to the tendency for obscurity, inconsistency, a Alan Sokal is known for having written a splendid parody known as the “Sokal Hoax”, a paper submitted and published in the journal “Social Text” which criticizes certain academic trends in literary criticism, philosophy, and sociology, such trends being largely influenced by certain French philosophers.
The editors, excited that a physicist has converted to their side, promptly published the article. It doesn’t necessarily mean everything they’ve written is junk, but they need to be held responsible for the fact that some of what they write is non-sense. 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.
This is the book you need to read. To add to that, there is the incessant theoretical backpedaling and earnest apologetics Assessing the usefulness or relevance of philosophy is a seemingly confounding endeavor.