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
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
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
|