Sokal, Alan. Fashionable nonsense: postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. / Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and. INTRODUCTION. Fashionable Nonsense Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. By ALAN SOKAL and JEAN BRICMONT Picador USA. So long as. Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen R.C. Hicks Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer The Dictionary .
|Published (Last):||27 August 2013|
|PDF File Size:||4.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The book accuses other academics of using scientific and mathematical terms incorrectly and criticizes proponents of the strong program for denying the value of truth. Nov 11, Ali Faqihi rated it it was amazing.
Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science
Apr 01, Brett Williams rated it it was amazing. It does not mean stating unequivocally, especially if the statements are so inane and absurd that they must or at least should be dismissed as simply meaningless.
To view it, click here. In the face of such abysmal intellectual denial, scientific reason can only repeatedly make the claim that there are such things fashionanle facts, and that they are observable. When Sokal published his famous joke paper, the joke was really that he didn’t realize it was all a joke already. Hail Sokal and Bricmont for wasting so much of their lives on such a ridiculous but apparently necessary task.
Or, more aptly, Derrida with it!
But recently I saw a bit of a yootoobe video where some guy says that is not what Sokal was doing, and that Sokal himself said so. So it’s usually the soundness, logic, style, and originality of the philosopher’s body of work and thought that tends to be revered or questioned in the end. Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s? If nothing else though Sokal and Bricmont show that clarity is necessary, desirable, and really not all that hard to achieve — would that modern culture theory at least pick up that much.
Their sense of humor — admittedly born out of frustration — is also ill-suited to their enterprise and their snide asides do it no service either. I use the word “respectable” contextually: Sep 10, Lane Wilkinson rated it really liked it Recommends it for: And this diversity is very important as it explains many things about the structure of mental disease.
His interests include computational physics and algorithms, such as Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for problems in statistical physics. Some not all philosophers sprinkle their texts with allusions to scientific or mathematical concepts that they do not appear to understand, and do not seem to care that they don’t understand. There is a reason that science and the humanities are administered by different departments in almost every university.
Sokal and Bricmont claim that the errors made by these authors render their math-based arguments and judgments either wrong or meaningless.
Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science by Alan Sokal
It would be nice to return to some semblance of reason and rhetoric in the Lit Crit field. Sokal’s was the only article written by a scientist, and he called it “Transgressing the Boundaries: This crisis is not so much a ‘dumbing-down’ of the humanities, but, rather, that the humanities are in danger of losing credibility.
But that’s just me being post-postmodernism in seminal abrasiveness of the complacence of fashionable academia and all its derivatives e.
For a long time I thought that Sokal’s famous hoax publication, plus this book, were intended to show that modern philosophers, particularly in France, are spouting nothing but nonsense.
If Sokal is correct, the shibboleths ‘hermeneutics’, ‘Lacanian’ and ‘desituationism’ are sufficient for advanced degrees from premier universities, and this has lead to a crisis. What if it really takes an expert eye to detect whether the emperor has clothes? Print Hardcover and Paperback. Okay, we have a few differences with them too, especially stylistically Tom Wolfe tried using up all the exclamation marks available to American authors in his novel The Bonfire of the Vanitiesbut Sokal and Bricmont apparently found a load of them somewhere, which they diligently littered through their text.
A torus, a Klein bottle, a cross-cut surface, are able to receive such a cut. Jan 14, Vikas Lather rated it it was amazing Shelves: Neither complete or consistent due to the implications of Godel’s t I would have given it five-stars if not for all the semantically incoherent non-sequiturs quoted ad nauseum.
Common-sense would nonsensf that physicists are not in the habit of teaching courses on Shakespeare, and English professors are not in the habit of teaching quantum mechanics. See, the whole point of cultural theorists “abusing” that sure is some strong language, sure glad it’s sworn to protect and serve math and science is not to actually draw analogies, but to manifest the underlying absurdity of analogies, to create greater confusion and that unique feel of incomprehensibility.
In what way would or should that affect our theories of human psychology. It’s a shame our money is spent so foolishly to support the production of postmodern and obscurantist crap. Postmodern medicine that tastes good!
There is an xlan as appendix C. The passages Sokal and Bricmont present are indeed examples of bad science to put it mildly. So what I’m left with is a sense of a huge and unbridgeable gulf. Keeping strictly to the scientific claims and subsequent abuses of several famous po-mo academics, Sokal shows both that post-modernism has created a parody of intellectual rigor, and that the post-modern methodology is in danger of undermining the once proud study of arts and letters. If one can symbolize the subject by this fundamental cut, in the same way one can show that a cut on a torus corresponds to the neurotic subject, and on a cross-cut nonsennse to another sort of qlan disease.
Jan 28, Fashionaable Brick rated it really liked it. Oct 10, Mark rated it it was amazing. This book, like much of Sokal’s work, is aimed at debunking the modern powerhouses of literary criticism, by the simple act of pointing out that their rhetoric, definitions, and understanding of the scientific principles they invoke are entirely flawed and amount to nonsense.
The equivocation is blatant enough to be funny; though Sokal shows that we should temper our laughter. We do have direct sokaal with the world.