Fashionable Nonsense 574312 223585797 2008-07-04T19:14:04Z 76.127.149.73 '''''Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science''''' (ISBN 0-312-20407-8; [[French language|French]]: '''''Impostures Intellectuelles'''''; published in the UK as '''''Intellectual Impostures''''', ISBN 1-86197-631-3) is a book by professors [[Alan Sokal]] and [[Jean Bricmont]]. Sokal is best known for the [[Sokal Affair]], in which he submitted an article full of "nonsense"<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html | title = A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies | accessmonthday = March 5 | accessyear = 2008 | author = Alan D. Sokal | last = Sokal | first = Alan | authorlink = Alan Sokal | work = [[Lingua Franca (magazine)|Lingua Franca]] | year = 1996 | month = May }}</ref> to ''[[Social Text]]'', a [[critical theory]] journal, and was able to get it published. ''Fashionable Nonsense'' was published in 1997 in [[France]], and in 1998 in the [[United States]]. As part of the so-called [[science wars]], the book criticizes [[postmodernism]] in academia for what it claims are misuses of scientific and [[mathematics|mathematical]] concepts in postmodern writing. Within the humanities, the response to the book was bitterly divided. Some were delighted, some enraged; reaction was polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue22/epstei22.htm | title = Postmodernism and the Left | accessmonthday = March 5 | accessyear = 2008 | author = Epstein, Barbara | last = Epstein | first = Barbara | authorlink = Barbara Epstein | work = [[New Politics (magazine)|New Politics]]<!-- vol. 6, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 22 --> | year = 1997 | month = Winter }}</ref> Critics of Sokal and Bricmont charge that they lack understanding of the writing they were criticizing. Responses from the scientific community were far more blunt and supportive. ==The book's thesis== ''Fashionable Nonsense'' examines two related topics: * the allegedly incompetent and pretentious usage of scientific concepts by a small group of influential philosophers and intellectuals; * the problems of [[cognitive relativism]], the idea that "modern science is nothing more than a 'myth', a 'narration' or a 'social construction' among many others"<ref name="FN">{{cite book | last = Sokal | first = Alan | authorlink = Alan Sokal | coauthors = [[Jean Bricmont]] | title = Fashionable Nonsense | publisher = Picador | date = 1998 | location = New York | pages = | isbn = 0312195451}} </ref> as seen in the [[Strong Programme]] in the [[sociology of science]]. ===Incorrect use of scientific concepts=== The stated goal of the book is not to attack "philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general...[but] to warn those who work in them (especially students) against some manifest cases of charlatanism."{{citequote}} In particular to "deconstruct" the notion that some books and writers are difficult because they deal with profound and difficult ideas. "If the texts seem incomprehensible, it is for the excellent reason that they mean precisely nothing."{{citequote}} The book includes long extracts from the works of [[Jacques Lacan]], [[Julia Kristeva]], [[Paul Virilio]], [[Gilles Deleuze]], [[Luce Irigaray]], [[Bruno Latour]], and [[Jean Baudrillard]] who are considered by some to be leading [[academic]]s of [[Continental philosophy]], [[critical theory]], [[psychoanalysis]] or [[social science]]s. Sokal and Bricmont set out to show how those intellectuals have used concepts from the [[physical science]]s and [[mathematics]] incorrectly. The extracts are intentionally rather long to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context. Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze [[postmodernist]] thought in general. They aim to draw attention to the abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics, where abuse means: * Using [[scientific]] or [[pseudoscientific]] terminology without bothering much about what these words mean. * Importing concepts from the [[natural sciences]] into the [[humanities]] without the slightest justification, and without providing any rationale for their use. * Displaying superficial [[erudition]] by shamelessly throwing around technical terms where they are irrelevant, presumably to impress and intimidate the non-specialist reader. * Manipulating words and phrases that are, in fact, meaningless. Self-assurance on topics far beyond the [[competence]] of the author and exploiting the prestige of science to give [[discourse]]s a veneer of rigor. The book gives a chapter to each of the above mentioned authors, "the tip of iceberg" of a group of intellectual practices that can be described as "mystification, deliberately obscure language, confused thinking and the misuse of scientific concepts."{{citequote}} For example, [[Luce Irigaray]] is criticised for asserting that [[mass-energy equivalence|E=mc<sup>2</sup>]] is a "sexed equation" because "it privileges the [[speed of light]] over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us"; and for asserting that [[fluid mechanics]] is unfairly neglected because it deals with "feminine" [[fluid]]s in contrast to "masculine" [[Solid mechanics|rigid mechanics]].<ref name="Dawkins_review" /> Similarly, Lacan is criticized for drawing analogies between topology and mental illness that, in Sokal and Bricmont's view, are unsupported by any [[argument]] and are "not just false: [they] are gibberish".{{citequote}} ===The postmodernist conception of science=== Sokal and Bricmont highlight the rising tide of what they call [[cognitive relativism]], the belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs. 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. Their aim is "not to criticize the left, but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself."{{citequote}} Quoting Michael Albert, "there is nothing truthful, wise, humane, or strategic about confusing hostility to injustice and oppression, which is leftist, with hostility to science and rationality, which is nonsense."{{citequote}} ==Support for Sokal and Bricmont== [[Richard Dawkins]], (speaking about [[Lacan]]) in a review of this book said "We do not need the mathematical expertise of Sokal and Bricmont to assure us that the author of this stuff is a fake. Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? But a philosopher who is caught equating the erectile organ to the square root of minus one has, for my money, blown his credentials when it comes to things that I don’t know anything about."<ref name="Dawkins_review">{{cite web |url=http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html |title=Postmodernism disrobed |accessmonthday=March 18 |accessyear=2008 |author=Richard Dawkins |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Dawkins |date=9 July 1998 |work=[[Nature]], vol. 394 |pages=141–143 }}</ref> ==Criticism of Sokal and Bricmont's arguments== Unsurprisingly, the book has been subject to heavy criticism by post-modern philosophers. [[Bruce Fink]] (who did the first complete English translation of Jacques Lacan's ''Ecrits'') offers one a critique in his book ''Lacan to the Letter'', where he accuses Sokal and Bricmont of demanding that "serious writing" do nothing other than "convey clear meanings".<ref name="Fink_130">{{cite book | last = Fink | first = Bruce | authorlink = Bruce Fink | title = Lacan to the Letter | publisher = University of Minnesota Press | date = 2004 | location = Minneapolis | pages = 130 | isbn = 0816643202}} </ref> Fink asserts that some concepts which Sokal and Bricmont consider arbitrary or meaningless do have roots in the history of linguistics, and that Lacan is explicitly using mathematical concepts in a metaphoric way, not claiming that his concepts are mathematically founded. He takes Sokal and Bricmont to task for elevating a disagreement with Lacan's choice of writing styles to an attack on his thought, which, in Fink's assessment, they fail to understand. Fink says that "Lacan could easily assume that his faithful seminar public... would go to the library or the bookstore and 'bone up' on at least some of his passing allusions".<ref name="Fink_130" /> Although Fink acknowledges that Lacan is difficult to read, admitting that "most of us — even those of us who devote a lot of time and energy to deciphering Lacan's work — become infuriated with him for it at one point or another," he also accuses Sokal and Bricmont of having "no idea whatsoever what Lacan is up to"<ref>Fink, p. 132.</ref> Sokal and Bricmont tacitly admit as much, saying that they "readily admit that we do not always understand the rest of these authors' work".<ref>Sokal and Bricmont, p. 9.</ref> Their position is that they are merely critiquing the misuse of scientific and mathematical concepts, which, as scientists, they do understand. This latter point, however, is disputed by critics such as [[Arkady Plotnitsky]], who holds graduate degrees in both mathematics and literature.<ref>{{cite web | last = Plotnitsky | first = Arkady | authorlink = Arkady Plotnitsky | title = Vita | date = Spring 2006 | url = http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~plotnits/Documents/aplotnit_vita.pdf | format = PDF | accessdate = 2008-03-18}}</ref> He suggests four central problems with Sokal and Bricmont. First, they lack familiarity with the subject matter and context of the works that they criticize. Second, they ignore the historical contexts of the use of mathematics and science. Third, they generally show a lack of aptitude for philosophy. Fourth, they do not show an understanding of the history or philosophy of mathematics and science, and indeed display less understanding of the mathematics than Lacan does in some areas. Plotnitsky particularly notes that "some of their claims concerning mathematical objects in question and specifically complex numbers are incorrect,"<ref>{{cite book | last = Plotnitsky | first = Arkady | authorlink = Arkady Plotnitsky | title = The Knowable and the Unknowable | publisher = University of Michigan Press | date = 2002 | location = Ann Arbor | pages = 112–113 | isbn = 0472097970}} </ref> making their attack on Lacan for similar errors particularly egregious. == References == {{Reflist}} ==See also== *[[Sokal affair]] *[[Science wars]] *[[Pseudoscience]] *[[Beyond the Hoax]] *[[Cargo cult science]] ==External links== * [http://mtprof.msun.edu/Fall1999/nosense.html Review by Matthew Benacquista] * [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html Alan Sokal Articles on the "Social Text" Affair], including the original article * [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html Review of ''Intellectual Impostures'' in Nature, 1998] by [[Richard Dawkins]] * [http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo Post Modern Generator: an online computer simulation of PoMo writing described in “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks”. An on-line copy is available from Monash University.] [[es:Imposturas intelectuales]] [[fr:Impostures intellectuelles]] [[pl:Modne bzdury]] [[Category:Sociology books]] [[Category:Sociology of scientific knowledge]] [[Category:1997 books]]