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.
|Published (Last):||2 February 2010|
|PDF File Size:||9.30 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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 inposturas ruined for a broad public forum that deserves better.
Sokap book was published in French inand in English in ; the English editions were revised for greater relevance to debates in the English-speaking world. Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd ed. Retrieved from ” https: Archived intelectuaix the original on May 12, The extracts are intentionally rather long intelecuais avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context.
Event occurs at 3: Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public 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. 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 apan.
Retrieved 15 April 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;  in some reading groupsreaction was polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal.
University of Michigan Press.
Alan Sokal Articles on the “Social Text” Affair
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. While Fink and Plotnitsky question Sokal and Bricmont’s right to say what definitions of scientific terms are correct, cultural theorists aokal 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? Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: Views Read Edit View history. The Knowable and the Unknowable.
People have been bitterly divided. 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. 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”. Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself.
The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it. However, with regard to the second sense, 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. This latter point has been disputed by Alann Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
Lacan to the Letter. This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat The book has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with some interest in continental philosophy.
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.
Responses from the scientific community were more supportive. Noam Chomsky called the book “very important” and said impozturas “a lot of the so-called ‘left’ criticism [of science] seems to be pure nonsense”.
Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? London Review of Books.