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.
|Published (Last):||17 April 2004|
|PDF File Size:||6.56 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.88 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Event occurs at 3: Two Millennia of Mathematics: The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ 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”. The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context.
From Archimedes to Gauss. Cover of the first edition. London Review of Books. Retrieved 15 April This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax.
At Whom Are We Laughing? 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. Retrieved March 5, The philosopher Thomas Nagel has supported Sokal and Bricmont, describing their book as consisting largely of “extensive quotations of scientific gibberish from name-brand French intellectuals, together with eerily patient explanations of why it is gibberish,”  and agreeing that “there does seem to be something about the Parisian scene that is particularly hospitable to reckless verbosity.
Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. Archived from the original on May 12, Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Views Read Edit View history.
Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? University of Michigan Press. Number Theory for Computing 2nd ed. inteelectuais
Imposturas intelectuais – Alan D. Sokal, Jean Bricmont – Google Books
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.
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. Fink says that “Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public Their aim is “not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself.
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. 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. 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.
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”. Lacan to the Letter.
Retrieved from ” https: Postmodernism Philosophy of science. According to some reports, the response within the humanities was “polarized. They argue that this view is held by a number of intelectuqis, 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;  in some reading groupsreaction was polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal.
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. Retrieved 25 June Responses from the scientific community were more supportive.
He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response.
This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat