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.

Author: Dunos Kijind
Country: Canada
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Personal Growth
Published (Last): 22 November 2018
Pages: 147
PDF File Size: 2.52 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.32 Mb
ISBN: 924-9-61629-902-9
Downloads: 81097
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kijinn

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. The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed. 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.

Archived from the original on May 12, Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it. London Review of Books. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public 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.

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”. 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. Rather, they aim to draw attention to the abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics, subjects they’ve devoted their careers to studying and teaching.


Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. Event occurs at 3: Sokal and Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.

Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont

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. Postmodernism Philosophy of science.

This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax. 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 intelecctuais the chance to reflect seriously on this issue has been ruined for a broad public forum that deserves better.

Alan Sokal Jean Bricmont. Responses from the scientific community were more supportive.

Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – DisputatioDisputatio

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. Print Hardcover and Paperback.

Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:. 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. 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.

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. 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 described as “mystification, deliberately obscure language, confused thinking and the misuse intelechuais scientific concepts.


Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself. He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. 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”.

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. The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the ijtelectuais edition.

Lacan to the Letter. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Retrieved from ” https: People have been bitterly divided. Views Read Edit View history. At Whom Are We Laughing?

Retrieved 25 June 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. The Knowable and the Unknowable.

Last modified: January 5, 2020