I remember there was some discussion on these issues a while ago, but
wondered whether the translation of the book into English might have the
effect of developing the discussion further...
cheekily
Duncan
----------
From: David Wainwright
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Intellectual Impostures
Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 10:28AM
Apologies if this is old hat, but I've just read an incredible book called
Intellectual Impostures, written by two physicists. The book has only just
been published in English, translated from the original French volume that
appeared late last year. Essentially the book comprises a detailed critique
of the use of scientific terminology and concepts in the work of
post-modernist social theorists, (the authors use the postmodern label quite
broadly). Not only do the authors demonstrate that writers such as Lacan,
Kristeva, Deleuze, etc. use scientific theories erroneously, they also imply
that in many instances there is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and
decieve. There is a strong element of 'emperor's new clothes' about the
book which makes it a delight to read. One of the authors, Sokal,
demonstrated his argument in a practical experiment. Basically, he wrote a
spoof article, full of bogus scientific claims, and citing eminent
postmodernists, which he submitted to a leading New York journal (Social
Text). Not only was the article successfully refereed and published, it
actually appeared in a special edition aimed at refuting scientific
criticisms of postmodernism! As well as an indictment of the intellectual
competence and integrity of some of the leading postmodernists, the book
also provides a convincing critique of epistemic relativism, or the claim
that scientific knowledge is no more valid or reliable than any other
discourse. The authors are keen to limit their critique to the use of
scientific concepts in social theory, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion
drawn by one reviewer, that postmodernism is 'a load of old tosh'. Does
this mean that we can finally bury postmodernism, along with all of its
anti-rationalist, anti-humanist baggage? Again, apologies if everyone else
has been discussing this for the last 6 months - one tries to keep up.
David Wainwright
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|