Fashionable nonsense: postmodem Intellectuals’ abuse or science. I Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. p. em. Includes bibliographical references and Index. Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen R.C. Hicks Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer The Dictionary . A review and a link to other reviews of Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.
|Published (Last):||17 August 2005|
|PDF File Size:||19.51 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.4 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
If you ever find yourself thinking the postmodern French philosophers actually have a point.
Impostures intellectuelles – Canada. First, a note on context — this book was co-authored by Alan Sokal, the perpetrator of the in famous Sokal Hoax. The authors, by analysis of several postmodernist French philosophers, show how they misuse, misrepresent, and misunderstand basic science. The preface and introduction to my edition make this clear, and the care Sokal and Bricmont employ in defining terms and not overstepping their boundaries of expertise is commendable.
Fashionable Nonsense – Canada. I found myself agreeing with Sokal and Bricmont in almost every case. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: It was completely relevant to my interests. Click here for the link – https: The equivocation is blatant enough to be funny; though Sokal shows that we should temper our laughter. They have limited their critique to those books that have ventured to invoke concepts from physics and mathematics.
It would be nice to return to some semblance of reason and rhetoric in the Lit Crit field.
Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science by Alan Sokal
But Fashionabld makes me wonder. No statement about the real world can ever literally be proven ; but to use the eminently appropriate fazhionable from Anglo-Saxon law, it can sometimes be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. After Sokal revealed the hoax, bitter debates raged within academia. I’ve certainly had this impression from the few pomo books and articles that I had the patience to go through. The authors fervor and the precision of their writing makes this a most engaging read.
I am reminded of an air-raid warden in wartime Oxford who, when bright moonlight seemed to be defeating the spirit of the blackout, exhorted us to wear dark glasses. 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”. As for Iragaray I would pinpoint her merits and intuitions regarding the differential usage of language sokzl to gender. Fasbionable Ship Orders Internationally.
How the stupidity of postmodernism has returned to destroy us.
Whereof one cannot speak, a truly wise man once suggested, thereof one should remain silent. Jan 14, Vikas Lather rated it it was amazing Shelves: Although this is an important book it is not a very fashionabl one to read for the simple fashionwble 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.
It will reassure you that incoherent sentences mixed shameless displays of false erudition–although extremely humorous–cannot change the fact that reason, eviden If you’ve ever had to read the postmodernist writings of Focault, Derrida, Lacan, or any of their innumerable disciples and come away with only the vaguest idea as to their meaning, you might want to read this book.
More plausible is the argument that Sokal and Bricmont only show a few selective examples, that these may or may not be representative, and that they often only figure in a small part of vashionable cited authors’ works i.
Soon thereafter, the essay was revealed as a brilliant parody, a catalog of nonsense written in the cutting-edge but impenetrable lingo of postmodern theorists. Sokal’s was the only article written by a scientist, and he fashionavle it “Transgressing the Boundaries: Analysing the texts of some of these ‘thinkers’ that they quote at large and gosh! I mean it felt like I was drowning in it—give me some gashionable please.
Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science
Feyerabend’s “epistemic anarchy” as put forward in his putative “Against Method” is analyzed, as is a radical interpretation of Quinean underdetermination and incomensurability, and Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. View eokal 3 comments.
They might also claim that the translation of the work in question was a poor one, or that their critics have a very particular axe to grind against them, whether it be political, racial, or class-based.
By sheer chance, I recently ran into this comment by Jonathan Swift which seems to have some bearing on the situation: In the face of such abysmal intellectual denial, scientific reason can only repeatedly make the claim that there are such things as facts, and that they are observable. Tell a lie once! Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition.
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”. Nov 11, Ali Faqihi rated it it was amazing. Picador; 1st edition January 14, Publication Date: Aug 07, Leila T. I’m sick of the contempt for the sciences communicated by the humanities even after their posts dialogue with scientific language.
They’re so focused on equality and tolerance that they sometimes ignore the hard facts, twist those facts to suit their agendas, or even go so far as to claim that there is no such thing as objective reality or facts at all. A major 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.
I found the first intermezzo chapter dealing with epistemic relativism to be the most interesting chapter in the book. Limiting her considerations to physics, science hystorian Mara Beller  maintained that it was 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.
Much like Edward O. The following comments are based on notes I took while reading the book.
Fashionzble view it, click here. Not only would this be immediately revealed by even more outraged scientists, but what exactly would be the point? Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources.