Intellectual Impostures and over 900,000 other books are available for Amazon Kindle . Learn more

Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Intellectual Impostures
 
 
Start reading Intellectual Impostures on your Kindle in under a minute.

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

Intellectual Impostures [Paperback]

Jean Bricmont
4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)

Available from these sellers.


Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition £6.44  
Paperback --  
Paperback, 3 April 2003 --  
Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Visit the Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store for more details.


Product details

  • Paperback: 304 pages
  • Publisher: Profile Books; New edition edition (3 April 2003)
  • Language English
  • ISBN-10: 1861976313
  • ISBN-13: 978-1861976314
  • Product Dimensions: 19.4 x 13 x 2.4 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 758,036 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Alan D. Sokal
Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Visit Amazon's Alan D. Sokal Page

Product Description

Amazon.co.uk Review

In 1996, an article entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" was published in the cultural studies journal Social Text. Packed with recherché quotations from "postmodern" literary theorists and sociologists of science, and bristling with imposing theorems of mathematical physics, the article addressed the cultural and political implications of the theory of quantum gravity. Later, to the embarrassment of the editors, the author revealed that the essay was a hoax, interweaving absurd pronouncements from eminent intellectuals about mathematics and physics with laudatory--but fatuous--prose.

In Intellectual Imposteurs, Alan Sokal, the author of the hoax, and Jean Bricmont contend that abuse of science is rampant in postmodernist circles, both in the form of inaccurate and pretentious invocation of scientific and mathematical terminology and in the more insidious form of epistemic relativism. When Sokal and Bricmont expose Jacques Lacan's ignorant misuse of topology, or Julia Kristeva's of set theory, or Luce Irigaray's of fluid mechanics, or Jean Baudrillard's of non-Euclidean geometry, they are on safe ground; it is all too clear that these virtuosi are babbling.

Their discussion of epistemic relativism--roughly, the idea that scientific and mathematical theories are mere "narrations" or social constructions--is less convincing, however, in part because epistemic relativism is not as intrinsically silly as, say, Regis Debray's maunderings about Gödel, and in part because the authors' own grasp of the philosophy of science frequently verges on the naive. Nevertheless, Sokal and Bricmont are to be commended for their spirited resistance to postmodernity's failure to appreciate science for what it is. --Glenn Branch, Amazon.com --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

Review

'A splendid book.' Richard Dawkins, Nature 'A delicious revelation that even the perpetrators of postmodern philosophy often have no idea what they're saying.' The Observer 'The exposure of ignorance, pomposity and pseudo-science in this book are truly breathtaking.' Sunday Telegraph 'A forensic examination of sackloads of ordure from the postmodern stable.' Financial Times

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

Tags Customers Associate with This Product

 (What's this?)
Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
 

Your tags: Add your first tag
 

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?


 

Customer Reviews

10 Reviews
5 star:
 (7)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:
 (1)
1 star:
 (1)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
4.2 out of 5 stars (10 customer reviews)
 
 
 
 
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most Helpful Customer Reviews

35 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Witty attack on pretentious 'postmodernists', 5 Aug 2001
By 
William Podmore (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Sokal and Bricmont, two professors of physics, show that fashionable French intellectuals in the fields of social and cultural studies - Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze, Julia Kristeva, Jean-Francois Lyotard and Luce Irigaray - habitually misuse scientific concepts and terms. Unable to produce genuine science in their own fields, Lacan et al import concepts from the physical sciences - typically, chaos theory, fuzzy logic and the uncertainty principle - to try to impress. They regard science, evidence, reason and knowledge as oppressive. Kristeva characteristically responded to criticism by calling Sokal and Bricmont Francophobes!

The two physicists attack relativism, the idea that a statement's truth or falsity is relative to an individual or social group. (Some US colleges run courses like 'queer studies', whose very subject is defined in relation to the interests of a social group, not by its field of study.) Relativists imply that modern science is just a 'myth', a 'narration' or a 'social construction'. This allows in the notion that, for instance, creationism is just as valid as the theory of evolution.

The editors of 'Social Text' accepted Sokal's famous spoof article, 'Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity', in which he wrote: "Physical 'reality', no less than social 'reality', is at bottom a social and linguistic construct." The editors of 'Science and Culture' accepted the Madsens' supposedly serious article, 'Structuring postmodern science', in which they wrote "A simple criterion for science to qualify as postmodern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth." Says it all really!

This book tears apart these postmodernist theorists. Sokal and Bricmont uphold the scientific approach, that knowledge is based on respect for the clarity and logical coherence of theories and on the confrontation of theories with empirical evidence. Knowledge in both natural and social science is cumulative; our understanding of the world grows as we constantly check our ideas against the reality.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


16 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars The merde hits the fan, 23 Oct 2004
By 
Pieter "Toypom" (Johannesburg) - See all my reviews
(TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)   
This review is from: Intellectual Impostures (Paperback)
This book grew out of the famous hoax in which Alan Sokal published a parody article in the American postmod journal Social Text. The article was filled with non sequiturs and nonsensical quotations about maths and physics by prominent French and American intellectuals, yet it was published unaltered. Sokal then revealed that it was a deliberate parody, to the great consternation of the editors.

Intellectual Impostures broadens the investigation to demonstrate how intellectuals such as Lacan, Kristeva, Irigaray, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari have repeatedly abused scientific concepts and terminology. They have either used these ideas completely out of context without justification or they have thrown scientific jargon around with no regard for its meaning or relevance, obviously to try to impress their readers.

In the preface to the first edition, Sokal and Bricmont provide the background to the controversy whilst in the preface to the second edition they discuss the four types of criticisms of their book. These are: critics who tried to refute them, critics who attributed to them ideas that the authors themselves had rejected, name-calling and ad hominem attacks, and finally those who agreed but thought that the authors did not go far enough.

Here one is tempted to partly agree with Anne Applebaum who, in her review of the book, claimed that of course post-structuralist theory is rubbish and that we don't need a book to tell us that. I disagree with the second statement, because Intellectual Impostures is mostly an amusing read that will have you rolling on the floor and because it is vitally important that intellectual frauds be exposed. In this regard I also highly recommend The Illusions Of Postmodernism by Terry Eagleton and The Anti Chomsky reader by David Horowitz and Peter Collier.

The introduction provides the history of the Sokal Hoax and the response to it. The major part of the book consists of an analysis of various texts by Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray, Bruno Latour, Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, and Paul Virilio. Brief explanations of the relevant scientific concepts plus references to popular and explanatory texts are provided. The authors also investigate certain philosophical and scientific confusions behind much of postmodernist thinking, like cognitive relativism, certain misunderstandings concerning chaos theory and so-called postmodern science.

Appendix A is the full text of the famous hoax article: Trangressing The Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Appendix B consists of comments on the parody and Appendix C serves as an afterword on the hilarious incident. This amusing and illuminating book concludes with a 14-page bibliography and an index.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars Slightly unfortunate, 17 Mar 2011
This review is from: Intellectual Impostures (Paperback)
This book goes well towards explaining some of the problems inherent in a philosopher like, say, Lacan; notoriously difficult to read to the point where charlatanism is an oft-leveled charge. Clarity would on the surface seem to be the best way to present any kind of philosophical idea which purports to have any kind of 'real-world' applicability, whatever that dubious phrase means. The biggest criticism, however, is that the Sokal and Bircmont pick out select passages from the people they seek to debunk and argue the points on their own, scientific, terms, as opposed to showing how in any way this misappropriation of scientific concepts bears much, if any, significance to the overall philosophical arguments inherent in modern thought. The argument presented is an unconvincing kind of guilt-by-association: that if thinkers are 'wrong' in their application of scientific terminology (emphasis on the word 'terminology') then they are, by extension, wrong about everything else they say or must at least be treated as if they were.

The reason the book is unfortunate is because so far as I can see it's been used as a means by which those curious about philosophy can instantly regard themselves as superior to it by dismissing the arguments per se, without further exploration. How much easier it would be to simply read one book which selectively highlights segments and then argues against them via means not present in the original text (Irigaray, for instance, doesn't claim to be a scientist) than to read the philosophers themselves? It reminds me of people who claim to read Nietzsche, but limit the reading largely to incomplete Wikipedia articles, the 'Maxims' in Beyond Good and Evil and the critiques of Kant (presumably to repeat them verbatim, so one can claim to have refuted the father of philosophy), or people who claim to be Marxists because they are fans of Rage Against the Machine. Similarly, this text has been appropriated by some as a precursor to study, rather then part of a broader spectrum of intellectual inquiry: read this book and you won't have to read or attempt to understand others.

There is a great deal of obscurity in the social sciences, particularly the fields of philosophy and psychoanalysis. There is, also, a great deal of inconsistency and complete nonsense. But it doesn't follow that from this all 'modern thought' is to be dismissed outright as the work of charlatans. Terms like 'discursive hegemony' and 'masculinist signifying economy' have meanings which might not be immediately apparent, but that because they are not immediately apparent doesn't imply that those meanings are not there. They are technical terms which refer to other people's work and a broader understanding of the fields in which the discussion takes place makes them clearer. The dismissal of academic thought as being intellectually worthless by virtue of its difficulty or obscurity is an unfortunate development by conservative commentators who, in seeking to defend thought from being cloaked in terms which are incomprehensible to non-specialists, become defenders of anti-thought - unwilling to explore new ideas because of their apparent difficulty. It's a strange kind of intellectual laziness; made stranger by virtue of it coming from otherwise exceptionally intellectually disciplined scientists. Though it doesn't appear that misappropriation was the authors' intention, it is nonetheless what has happened with this text.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
 Go to Amazon.com to see all 11 reviews  3.6 out of 5 stars 
Were these reviews helpful?   Let us know
 
 
Most Recent Customer Reviews








Only search this product's reviews



Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
Topic:
First post:
Prompts for sign-in
 


Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions
   
Related forums


Listmania!


Look for similar items by category


Look for similar items by subject


Feedback