# fashionable nonsense aka raw scientism ![[imposturesintellectuelles.jpg|300]] cover of the first edition authors: alan sokal jean bricmont original title: impostures intellectuelles country: france language: french subjects: postmodernism philosophy of science published: 1997 (odile jacob in french) - 1999 (picador usa in english) media type: print (hardcover and paperback) pages: xiv 300 oclc: 770940534 fashionable nonsense: post-modem intellectuals' abuse of science (1998; uk: intellectual impostures) first published in french in 1997 as impostures intellectuelles is a book by physicists alan sokal and jean bricmont. as part of the so-called science wars sokal and bricmont criticize postmodernism in academia for the misuse of scientific and mathematical concepts in post-modem writing the book was published in english in 1998 with revisions to the original 1997 french edition for greater relevance to debates in the english-speaking world. according to some reports the response within the humanities was "polarised"; critics of sokal and bricmont charged that they lacked understanding of the writing they were scrutinizing. by contrast responses from the scientific community were more supportive similar to the subject matter of the book sokal is best known for ir eponymous 1996 hoaxing affair whereby ey was able to get published a deliberately absurd article that ey submitted to social text a critical theory journal. the article itself is included in fashionable nonsense as an appendix # summary fashionable nonsense examines two related topics 1. the allegedly incompetent and pretentious usage of scientific concepts by a small group of influential philosophers and intellectuals; and 2. 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" - as found in the strong programme in the sociology of science # # incorrect use of scientific concepts versus scientific metaphors the stated goal of the book is not to attack "philosophy the humanities or the social sciences in general" but rather "to warn those who work in them (especially students) against some manifest cases of charlatanism.": 5 in particular the authors aim to "deconstruct" the notion that some books and writers are difficult because they deal with profound and complicated ideas: "if the texts seem incomprehensible it is for the excellent reason that they mean precisely nothing.": 6 set out to show how numerous key intellectuals have used concepts from the physical sciences and mathematics incorrectly sokal and bricmont intentionally provide considerably lengthy extracts in order to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context. such extracts pull from such works as those of jacques lacan julia kristeva paul virilio gilles deleuze felix guattari luce irigaray bruno latour and jean baudrillard who - in terms of the quantity of published works invited presentations and of citations received - were some of the leading academics of continental philosophy critical theory psychoanalysis and/or the social sciences at the time of publication the book provides 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.": xi for example luce irigaray is criticised for asserting that e=mc2 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" fluids in contrast to "masculine" rigid mechanics. similarly lacan is criticised for drawing an analogy between topology and mental illness that in sokal and bricmont's view is unsupported by any argument and is "not just false: it is gibberish.": 23 sokal and bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. rather they aim to draw attention to the abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics ir areas of specialty. sokal and bricmont define this abuse as any of the following behaviors **+** using scientific or pseudoscientific terminology without bothering much about technical meanings **+** importing concepts from the natural sciences into the humanities without justification for ir use **+** displaying superficial erudition by using technical terms where they are irrelevant presumably to impress and intimidate non-specialist readers **+** manipulating meaningless words and phrases **+** self-assurance on topics far beyond the competence of the author and exploiting the prestige of science to give discourses a veneer of rigor # # 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. ir aim is "not to criticize the left but to help defend it from a trendy segment of itself.": xii quoting michael albert- > here 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.: xii # reception according to new york review of books editor barbara epstein who was delighted by sokal's hoax the response to the book within the humanities was bitterly divided with some delighted and some enraged; in some reading groups reaction was polarised between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of sokal # # support philosopher thomas nagel has supported sokal and bricmont describing ir book as consisting largely of "extensive quotations of scientific gibberish from name-brand french intellectuals together with eerily patient explanations of why it is gibberish-" and agreeing that "there does seem to be something about the parisian scene that is particularly hospitable to reckless verbosity" several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. richard dawkins in a review of this book said regarding the discussion of lacan > we do not need the mathematical expertise of sokal and bricmont to assure us that the author of this stuff is a bluffy. perhaps ey is genuine when ey 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 ir credentials when it comes to things that i don't know anything about noam chomsky called the book "very important" and said that "a lot of the so-called 'left' criticism seems to be pure nonsense" # # criticism !(fashionable%20nonsense/unbalancedscales.svg.jpg|300]]: this article's criticism or controversy section may compromise the article's neutrality by separating out potentially negative information. please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole or rewrite the material. (june 2023) limiting ir considerations to physics science historian mara beller maintained that it was not entirely fair to blame contemporary post-modem philosophers for drawing nonsensical conclusions from quantum physics since many such conclusions were drawn by some of the leading quantum physicists themselves such as bohr or heisenberg when they ventured into philosophy # # regarding lacan bruce fink offers a critique in ir book lacan to the letter in which ey accuses sokal and bricmont of demanding that "serious writing" do nothing other than "convey clear meanings." 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 ir concepts are mathematically founded. ey takes sokal and bricmont to task for elevating a disagreement with lacan's choice of writing styles to an attack on ir thought which in fink's assessment they fail to understand. fink says that "lacan could easily assume that ir faithful seminar public...would go to the library or the bookstore and 'bone up' on at least some of ir passing allusions" similar to fink a review by john sturrock in the london review of books accuses sokal and bricmont of "linguistic reductionism" claiming that they misunderstood the genres and language uses of ir intended quarries this point has been disputed by arkady plotnitsky (one of the authors mentioned by sokal in ir original hoax.) plotnitsky says that "some of ir claims concerning mathematical objects in question and specifically complex numbers are incorrect"-: 112-3 specifically attacking ir statement that complex numbers and irrational numbers "have nothing to do with one another".: 25 plotnitsky here defends lacan's view "of imaginary numbers as an extension of the idea of rational numbers - both in the general conceptual sense extending to its ancient mathematical and philosophical origins...and in the sense of modern algebra.": 146 the first of these two senses refers to the fact that the extension of real numbers to complex numbers mirrors the extension of rationals to reals as plotnitsky points out with a quote from leibniz: "from the irrationals are born the impossible or imaginary quantities whose nature is very strange but whose usefulness is not to be despised" plotnitsky nevertheless agrees with sokal and bricmont that the "square root of −1" which lacan discusses (and for which plotnitsky introduces the symbol ![[1165b15f19e84b7084962fd65bdcd499a223bde4.svg)) is not in spite of its identical name "identical directly linked or even metaphorised via the mathematical square root of −1" and that the latter "is not the erectile organ".: 147 # # regarding irigaray 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 ir disciplines against what they saw as a misappropriation of key terms and concepts" by writers such as jacques lacan and luce irigaray. however they point out that irigaray might still be correct in asserting that e = mc2 is a "masculinist" equation since "the social genealogy of a proposition has no logical bearing on its truth value." basically gender factors may influence which of many possible scientific truths are discovered. they also suggest that in criticising irigaray sokal and bricmont sometimes go beyond ir area of expertise in the sciences and simply express a differing position on gender politics # # derrida in ir response first published in le monde as "sokal and bricmont aren't serious" jacques derrida writes that the sokal hoax is rather "sad" not only because alan sokal's name is now linked primarily to a hoax rather than science but also because the chance to reflect seriously on this issue has been ruined for a broad public forum that deserves better.: 70 derrida reminds ir readers that science and philosophy have long debated ir likenesses and differences in the discipline of epistemology but certainly not with such an emphasis on the nationality of the philosophers or scientists. ey calls it ridiculous and weird that there are intensities of treatment by the scientists in particular that ey was "much less badly treated" when in fact ey was the main target of the us press.: 70 derrida then proceeds to question the validity of ir attacks against a few words ey made in an off-the-cuff response during a conference that took place thirty years prior to ir publication. ey suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking ir response.: 71 ey also writes that there is no "relativism" or a critique of reason and the enlightenment in ir works. ey then writes of ir hope that in the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at the level of the issues involved.: 72 # see also **+** beyond the hoax **+** cargo cult science **+** list of scientific metaphors **+** nonscience **+** not even wrong **+** postmodernism generator **+** pseudoscience **+** science wars **+** the dictionary of fashionable nonsense **+** materialism and empirio-criticism - 1909 book by vladimir lenin **+** sokal alan d (1996) "transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity" (pdf) social text 46/47 (46/47): 217-252 doi: 10.2307/466856 jstor 466856 retrieved 2 july 2017 **+** richard dawkins "postmodernism disrobed. review of intellectual impostures by alan sokal and jean bricmont" reprinted in the devil's chaplain: selected essays phoenix 2003 (50-6) **+** scientism: the new orthodoxy by daniel n. robinson (editor) and richard n. williams (editor) // republic of bob