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. Back to Alan Sokal’s Physics Department Page (see also old page) .. , Trimestre 2, ); Review of Imposturas Intelectuais, by Sara.

Author: Tokree Nirn
Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 22 December 2007
Pages: 61
PDF File Size: 1.34 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.17 Mb
ISBN: 240-2-82862-937-3
Downloads: 62588
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mikataur

Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. He takes Sokal and Bricmont to task impostugas 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.

Lacan to the Letter. 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.

Imposturas intelectuais – Alan D. Sokal, Jean Bricmont – Google Books

Two Millennia of Mathematics: Some are delighted, some are enraged. 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.

Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed. University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved March 5, 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.

Impostruas Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:.


The stated goal of the book is not to attack “philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition.

Alan Sokal

Views Read Edit View history. Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? 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”.

The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context. The philosopher Thomas Nagel has supported Sokal and Bricmont, describing their book as consisting largely of “extensive quotations of scientific gibberish from name-brand Slkal 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.

At Whom Are We Laughing? intelectyais

Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont

This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat Retrieved 25 June From Archimedes to Gauss. Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont.

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 book has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with some interest in continental philosophy.

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

By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. According to so,al reports, the response within the humanities was “polarized. London Review of Books. 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.


Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed.

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 impostufas as “mystification, impsturas obscure language, confused thinking and the misuse of scientific concepts. 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 and Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.

Print Hardcover and Paperback. 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.

Postmodernism Philosophy of science. Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly. Cover of the first edition.

Author: admin