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):||1 April 2015|
|PDF File Size:||9.10 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.68 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Knowable and the Unknowable.
Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:. Retrieved 15 April Retrieved from ” https: The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [ 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.
University of Minnesota Press. Postmodernism Philosophy of science. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science French: Richard Dawkinsin a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: 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.
Imposturas intelectuais – Alan D. Sokal, Jean Bricmont – Google Books
Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Some are delighted, some are enraged. Two Millennia of Mathematics: From Archimedes to Gauss.
Event occurs at 3: Views Read Edit View history. The book has been criticized by post-modern philosophers and by scholars with some interest in continental philosophy.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
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. Lacan to the Letter. 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. Archived from the original on May 12, Sokal and Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call cognitive relativismthe belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs.
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. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science Cover of the first edition. Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Responses from the scientific community were more supportive. 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.
Imposturas Intelectuais, de Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont – DisputatioDisputatio
University of Michigan Press. This latter point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax.
Cover of the first edition.
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. 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.