| Fashionable Nonsense |
Website Links For Fashionable |
Information AboutFashionable Nonsense |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT FASHIONABLE NONSENSE | |
| sociology books | |
| sociology of scientific knowledge | |
| 1997 books | |
|
The book is well known as a document of the conflict around Postmodernism in academia and other places. Properly speaking the work attacks Post-structuralism and the application of Critical Theory to Science , with the work of Jacques Lacan and others basing their work on Lacan being a particular focus. THE BOOK'S THESIS ''Fashionable Nonsense'' examines two related topics:
Note that the second claim has been more controversial and criticized than the first. Incorrect use of scientific concepts The book begins with a long list of extracts from the works of leading Academic s of Philosophy , Critical Theory , Psychoanalysis or Social Science s, where, according to Sokal and Bricmont, those intellectuals have used concepts from the Physical Science s and Mathematics incorrectly. The extracts are intentionally rather long — Sokal and Bricmont stated that they chose to make long quotations to avoid accusations of taking sentences out of context. For each author, they explain why they consider his or her use of scientific terminology to be faulty. Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to directly criticize the philosophical or sociological methods or conclusions of the authors they quote. They restrict themselves to explaining why they feel that each is misusing specific scientific concepts. They claim that:
Therefore, Sokal and Bricmont contend, the authors of those texts probably attempted an incompetent show of erudition in an attempt to impress their readers. The authors who are criticized include Jacques Lacan , Julia Kristeva , Paul Virilio , Jean-François Lyotard , Gilles Deleuze , Luce Irigaray , Bruno Latour , and Jean Baudrillard . Sokal and Bricmont criticize authors not only for pretension and for apparently discussing theories that they do not understand in the least, but also for making comments that they deem totally irrelevant. For example, Luce Irigaray is criticised for asserting that ''E''=''mc''2 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" Rigid Mechanics {Link without Title} . (Fluid mechanics is actually an active research topic, while the mechanics of the solid body are now a closed topic; much scientific attention is devoted to the mechanics of soft matter, powders etc., intermediate between fluids and solids.) 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. CRITICISM OF SOKAL AND BRICMONT'S ARGUMENTS A variety of replies to ''Fashionable Nonsense'' have been put forward. Critics of Sokal and Bricmont have alleged that their books revealed a wider incompetence on the topics they were discussing, or even their intellectual dishonesty. Political arguments A principal accusation against Sokal and Bricmont was that they had hidden political objectives. That is why they took the pain to point out that their own personal political feelings were Left-wing too (Jean Bricmont has openly advocated strongly left-wing positions in a variety of publications.) In fact, they deplore the association of the left with radical postmodernist thought, which, they argued, undermines political struggles by the left. If this criticism is directed at Sokal and Bricmont's writings then it is an example of the fallacy argumentum Ad Hominem . Lack of comprehension of postmodernism The book was criticized by many as a rather gratuitous attack by the " Hard Science s" on the " Soft Science s". Many of Sokal and Bricmont's critics have argued that they have not made an effort in good faith to understand post-modern philosophy and that their use of post-modern concepts has as many inaccuracies as post-modern philosophers use of scientific concepts. They further decry the fact that rather than attempt to build dialogue between the sciences and humanities, Sokal and Bricmont seem committed to making postmodernism look foolish and meaningless. These criticisms focus on the confusion of Poststructuralism , which is one current in post-modern thought, with all of Postmodernism , a level of confusion which the authors would not tolerate if applied to physics. Criticisms have also been levelled at use of ridicule rather than disproof, for example attacks on Derrida's use of the term "game" which has an established use in philosophy. The authors, by failing to distinguish between philosophy of a particular area, and the wider use of the term are accused of failing to understand what they attack. Supporters of Sokal have responded to such criticism by saying that Postmodern theory itself obviates any criticism made by postmodernists since all knowledge is just an interpretation of previous knowledge. Thus, Sokal's interpretation of the work of post-structuralists is just an interpretation of the reality as it is available to him, just as post-structuralists do the same in their own reality. Alleged lack of honesty Sokal and Bricmont's own honesty has been criticised in recent years. Although Sokal had previously used a conference remark by Jacques Derrida as an exemplary mistreatment of science, the book did not include any further critique of Derrida because they agreed that Derrida rarely ever talks about science and does not generally use scientific imagery in his work. Some have claimed that this points to their honesty rather than dishonesty, but this claim is compromised by the aggression to which Derrida is nonetheless subjected. The use of Derrida in Sokal's original hoax drew primarily on a recycling of quotes drawn unreasonably out of context (according to Gabriel Stolzenberg, Sokal professed himself to be inspired by one book in a series of previously misconceived criticisms of Derrida; see {Link without Title} , also cited below), and these were not withdrawn but used to argue for the general integrity of both the hoax and the co-authored book (i.e. treatment was restricted to one case acknowledged to be isolated, but the rebuttal is that there are no such cases at all, a fact which Stolzenberg argues to be clearly demonstrable in the single instance cited, an argument which Sokal and Bricmont do not concede — ''if'' they are wrong in this refusal, they are dishonest by implication, the more so for redeploying the argument to defend the integrity of the book). Alleged lack of comprehension of science studies Most scholars of '' Science Studies '' have argued that Sokal and Bricmont have deeply misunderstood science studies in general and the '' Strong Programme '' in particular. They accuse Sokal, Bricmont and many of their supporters of not properly distinguishing between the claim that scientific work is socially grounded and a belief that scientific hypotheses are arbitrary. While the strong programme, along with many other schools of the Sociology Of Knowledge , emphasizes the central importance of the former, few if any scholars genuinely believe the latter. The strong programme, in its original form, merely claimed that the success of a theory or a line of scientific research needs to be explained in the same manner as a failure. In short, if we attribute the success of a false theory to social causes, we should also attribute the success of correct ones to social causes. Since this approach makes it difficult to distinguish false theories from true ones on some external, natural basis, it superficially seems to suggest that science, while not ultimately arbitrary, partakes of arbitrary decisions in a wider historical context. For example: a scientific theory which makes utterly spurious predictions or offers a false guide to action is unlikely to gain social acceptance on a strictly utilitarian basis, although such utilitarianism ought not be taken as a sole or even normatively privileged criterion given that it, too, is a profoundly historical phenomenon of relatively recent vintage. Many Sociologists Of Science , and adherents of the strong programme in particular, consider the social mechanisms by which these judgements are made to be a better guide to understanding science than references to whether or not a theory is, in some sense, true on terms marked off as "internal". While the utility and validity of this perspective may well be debatable, neither is it so ignorant of science or so unsophisticated. The debate over sciences studies was reprised in another episode of the science wars, '' The One Culture? ''. SEE ALSO REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|