ALAN SOKAL ELEGANTER UNSINN PDF
: Eleganter Unsinn. () by Alan Sokal; Jean Bricmont and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available. Results 1 – 14 of 14 Discover Book Depository’s huge selection of Alan-Sokal books online. Free delivery worldwide Eleganter Unsinn · Alan Sokal. Paperback. A review and a link to other reviews of Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal and Authors: Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont Eleganter Unsinn – Deutschland.
|Published (Last):||6 September 2018|
|PDF File Size:||18.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.19 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Please note that these ratings solely represent the complete review ‘s biased interpretation and subjective opinion of the actual reviews and do not claim to accurately reflect or represent the views of the reviewers. Similarly the illustrative quotes chosen here are merely those the complete review subjectively believes represent the tenor and judgment of the review as a whole. We acknowledge and remind and warn you that they may, in fact, be entirely unrepresentative of the actual reviews by any other elegannter.
The complete review ‘s Review:. The notorious parody written by Alan Sokal and published by a gullible gang of academics at Social Text is one of the sadder chapters in modern American academia. For those who do not recall it: Sokal submitted a paper titled Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity which he describes as “a parody article crammed with nonsensical, but unfortunately authentic, quotations about physics and mathematics by prominent French and American intellectuals.
Instead of apan a good laugh and sending the essay back to Sokal the good folks at Social Text took it seriously and published it. Revealing the hoax, Sokal set off quite an uproar, only in part about the question he was addressing — the use of science and scientific concepts and terminology in a non-scientific setting.
This book is in many respects a gloss on the article. Somal are cited and ridiculed, and Sokal and Bricmont then also make some larger alsn more general points. It is a bizarre debate that has evolved around this, and in fact the critical response is almost as interesting as the book itself. The passages Sokal and Bricmont present are indeed examples of bad science to put it mildly.
No one can really deny that. Some critics do, however, have the gall to suggest that this is immaterial, that the ideas these great thinkers propound and propose are so significant that the use of false, elegater, and irrelevant evidence to support them is perfectly valid.
We don’t uninn get that argument, but it is a fun idea. More plausible is the argument that Sokal and Bricmont only show a few selective examples, that these may or may not be representative, and that they often only figure in a small part of the cited authors’ works i. While there is something to this, and it should be kept in mind, there is slan escaping that the selections offered are frightening and horrendous enough to warrant casting anything uttered by these “thinkers” into doubt.
Naturally there are also some who argue that thinkers in the humanities should not be as earthbound and as hidebound as scientists and should have the liberty of stretching truth elleganter reality if it suits their purposes, soakl.
Our two cents re. Certainly all ways of looking at something should be considered, but equally certainly most like sexed relativity can be quickly dismissed. Except for on a funky Star Trek episode we can’t see much use for considering the speed of light privileged.
The selections are numbingly horrific, an outrage so maddening that we actually found it physically difficult to read the book. Wanting to be open-minded we would like to consider the possibility that all these writers only mean all these stupid things they are saying as metaphorbut my oh my what a slippery slope that puts us on.
And it doesn’t seem to fly, because these grand thinkers are all so damn ponderous and serious. Sokal and Bricmont go to great lengths to maintain that they are only attacking the weak science of these works, but the inescapable conclusion is that thinkers who are willing to spew such claptrap without a thought for its meaning, and whose only goal is to cow and intimidate their audience through the use of incontestable terminology and concepts are, in fact, charlatans, and that while there might be some value in their charlatanry it is not really something we should look upon kindly.
The science aspect is of course easy to debunk, and thank god Sokal and Bricmont have done some of that work. The rest, built on the pyramid of empty jargon of literary theory, sociology, psychology, etc. If nothing else though Sokal and Bricmont show that clarity is necessary, desirable, and really not all that hard to achieve — would that modern culture theory at least pick up that much. Much of the debate is about relativism — the absolute truth of science versus modern theory’s insistence on relativism.
The question is not completely black and white — of course relativism operates in many significant areas of human intercourse, including science — the question is in the how and where and of course the why. The blanket relativism that Sokal offers in his parody is an absurdity, and easily recognizable as such.
It seems fairly clear that the thinkers quoted use scientific terminology not for actual support though we are thinking that topology is a fun thing to apply to psychologybut because the abstract notion “science” lends their arguments credibility.
As Sokal and Bricmont point out, even if the science the so-called thinkers cite were accurate most of the time it still has absolutely nothing to do with what they are actually trying pretending? It is an unusual way of undermining science since the thinkers are toppled along with their false foundationsbut this, surely, is the most dangerous aspect of the whole affair — that science is pulled down to their level, when its great value is in being above such petty and mindless debate, when its strength is in the intellectual rigor it demands.
Sokal and Bricmont address the two-cultures debate, and the fact that science is so foreign to so many allowing it to be abused all the easier.
It is a problem society should wrestle with. Whereof one cannot speak, a truly wise man once suggested, thereof one should remain silent. The idea never caught on. Considering foreign concepts is, of course, important, and the interplay between science, society, and social theories should be explored — but exploration means considering, hypothesizing, using the available tools.
It does not mean stating unequivocally, especially if the statements are so inane and absurd that they must or at least should be dismissed as simply meaningless. The shoddily edited Social Text — its editors perhaps so pleased to find themselves extensively cited that they did not actually read the submission very carefully — betrayed all sense of academic rigor and standards Astonishingly no one seems to have lost their jobs or positions as a result of this case — academia, ain’t it great!
Radical thought must be embraced — but what the Social Text folk do is neither radical nor is it thought. That group and the thinkers they have embraced have twisted all debate into the unintellectual, returning it to the level of theological debate where anything can be proposed and propounded as long as the proper terminology and, in the case of theological debate, the reigning deities are invoked.
Proper reasoning is no longer called for — when in fact it is the first thing that should be called for.
Niemann’s SOKAL page
Long live logic, indeed. Fashionable Nonsense is a perverse and maddening book. It is like a book about child abuse, describing in graphic detail the sins of the fathers — there should be no need for such a thing.
And yet there is. An important book, it is nevertheless almost unreadable — mainly because of the absurd passages cited extensively by Unsinb and Bricmont.
It is worse than books debunking psychic phenomena and the like because whereas psychics address the common man, the thinkers attacked here write in prose? Hail Sokal and Bricmont for wasting so much of their lives on such a ridiculous but apparently necessary task.
A pox on those who uninn them. Okay, we have a few differences with them too, especially stylistically Tom Wolfe tried using up all the exclamation marks available to American authors in his novel The Bonfire of the Vanitiesbut Sokal and Bricmont apparently found a load of them somewhere, which they diligently littered through their text. Their sense of humor — admittedly unsin out of frustration — is also ill-suited to their enterprise and their snide asides do it no service either.
Eleganter Unsinn – die Postmoderne auf dem Prüfstand
The original parody, included here, is a fairly fun read it can also be found online. On the whole, however, the book is a tough slog. Worth leafing through, but hard to recommend actually reading it.
Trying to meet all your book preview and review needs. Fashionable Nonsense – US. Intellectual Impostures – UK. Fashionable Nonsense – Elrganter. Impostures intellectuelles – Canada.
Impostures intellectuelles – France. Eleganter Unsinn – Deutschland.