Fashionable Nonsense

Last updated
Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science
Impostures Intellectuelles.jpg
Cover of the first edition
Authors Alan Sokal
Jean Bricmont
Original titleImpostures intellectuelles
CountryFrance
LanguageFrench
Subjects Postmodernism
Philosophy of science
Published
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pagesxiv, 300
ISBN 0-312-20407-8
OCLC 770940534

Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern 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. [1] As part of the so-called science wars, Sokal and Bricmont criticize postmodernism in academia for the misuse of scientific and mathematical concepts in postmodern writing.

Contents

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. [2] According to some reports, the response within the humanities was "polarized"; [3] 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 his eponymous 1996 hoaxing affair, whereby he was able to get published a deliberately absurd article that he submitted to Social Text , a critical theory journal. [4] The article itself is included in Fashionable Nonsense as an appendix. [5]

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" [1] —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." [1] :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." [1] :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, Félix 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." [1] :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. [6] Similarly, Lacan is criticized 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." [1] :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, their areas of specialty. Sokal and Bricmont define this abuse as any of the following behaviors:

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." [1] :xii Quoting Michael Albert,

[T]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. [1] :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; [3] in some reading groups, reaction was polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal. [3]

Support

Philosopher Thomas Nagel has supported Sokal and Bricmont, describing their 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," [7] and agreeing that "there does seem to be something about the Parisian scene that is particularly hospitable to reckless verbosity." [8]

Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. Richard Dawkins, in a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of Lacan: [6]

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.

Noam Chomsky called the book "very important", and said that "a lot of the so-called 'left' criticism [of science] seems to be pure nonsense." [9]

Criticism

Limiting her considerations to physics, science historian Mara Beller [10] maintained that it was not entirely fair to blame contemporary postmodern 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. [11]

Regarding Lacan

Bruce Fink offers a critique in his book Lacan to the Letter, in which he accuses Sokal and Bricmont of demanding that "serious writing" do nothing other than "convey clear meanings". [12] 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." [12]

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 their intended quarries. [13]

This point has been disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky (one of the authors mentioned by Sokal in his original hoax). [14] Plotnitsky says that "some of their claims concerning mathematical objects in question and specifically complex numbers are incorrect", [15] :112–3 specifically attacking their statement that complex numbers and irrational numbers "have nothing to do with one another". [1] :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." [15] :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." [16]

Plotnitsky nevertheless agrees with Sokal and Bricmont that the "square root of −1" which Lacan discusses (and for which Plotnitsky introduces the symbol ) is not, in spite of its identical name, "identical, directly linked, or even metaphorized via the mathematical square root of −1", and that the latter "is not the erectile organ". [15] :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[ing] their disciplines against what they saw as a misappropriation of key terms and concepts" by writers such as Jacques Lacan and Luce Irigaray. [17] 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." [17] In other words, 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 their area of expertise in the sciences and simply express a differing position on gender politics. [17]

Derrida

In his 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. [18] :70 Derrida reminds his readers that science and philosophy have long debated their likenesses and differences in the discipline of epistemology, but certainly not with such an emphasis on the nationality of the philosophers or scientists. He calls it ridiculous and weird that there are intensities of treatment by the scientists, in particular, that he was "much less badly treated", when in fact he was the main target of the US press. [18] :70

Derrida then proceeds to question the validity of their attacks against a few words he made in an off-the-cuff response during a conference that took place thirty years prior to their publication. He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. [18] :71 He also writes that there is no "relativism" or a critique of Reason and the Enlightenment in his works. He then writes of his hope that in the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at the level of the issues involved. [18] :72

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jacques Lacan</span> French psychoanalyst and writer (1901–1981)

Jacques Marie Émile Lacan was a French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist. Described as "the most controversial psycho-analyst since Freud", Lacan gave yearly seminars in Paris, from 1953 to 1981, and published papers that were later collected in the book Écrits. Transcriptions of his seminars, given between 1954 and 1976, were also published. His work made a significant impact on continental philosophy and cultural theory in areas such as post-structuralism, critical theory, feminist theory and film theory, as well as on the practice of psychoanalysis itself.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julia Kristeva</span> Bulgarian philosopher (born 1941)

Julia Kristeva is a Bulgarian-French philosopher, literary critic, semiotician, psychoanalyst, feminist, and, most recently, novelist, who has lived in France since the mid-1960s. She has taught at Columbia University, and is now a professor emerita at Université Paris Cité. The author of more than 30 books, including Powers of Horror, Tales of Love, Black Sun: Depression and Melancholia, Proust and the Sense of Time, and the trilogy Female Genius, she has been awarded Commander of the Legion of Honor, Commander of the Order of Merit, the Holberg International Memorial Prize, the Hannah Arendt Prize, and the Vision 97 Foundation Prize, awarded by the Havel Foundation.

Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse characterized by skepticism toward the "grand narratives" of modernism; rejection of epistemic (scientific) certainty or the stability of meaning; and sensitivity to the role of ideology in maintaining political power. Claims to objectivity are dismissed as naïve realism, with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses. The postmodern outlook is characterized by self-referentiality, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism; it rejects the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.

Post-structuralism is a philosophical movement that questions the objectivity or stability of the various interpretive structures that are posited by structuralism and considers them to be constituted by broader systems of power. Although post-structuralists all present different critiques of structuralism, common themes among them include the rejection of the self-sufficiency of structuralism, as well as an interrogation of the binary oppositions that constitute its structures. Accordingly, post-structuralism discards the idea of interpreting media within pre-established, socially constructed structures.

The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax, was a demonstrative scholarly hoax performed by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor, specifically to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social constructionism</span> Sociological theory regarding shared understandings

In the interdisciplinary fields of sociology, social ontology, and communication theory, social constructionism serves as a theoretical framework that suggests various facets of social reality—such as concepts, beliefs, norms, and values—are formed through continuous interactions and negotiations among society's members, instead of the pure objective observation of physical reality. The theory of social constructionism posits that much of what individuals perceive as 'reality' is actually the outcome of a dynamic process of construction influenced by social conventions and structures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alan Sokal</span> American physicist and mathematician (born 1955)

Alan David Sokal is an American professor of mathematics at University College London and professor emeritus of physics at New York University. He works in statistical mechanics and combinatorics. He is a critic of postmodernism, and caused the Sokal affair in 1996 when his deliberately nonsensical paper was published by Duke University Press's Social Text. He also co-authored a paper criticizing the critical positivity ratio concept in positive psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jean Bricmont</span> Belgian physicist and essayist (born 1952)

Jean Bricmont is a Belgian theoretical physicist and philosopher of science. Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain (UCLouvain), he works on renormalization group and nonlinear differential equations. Since 2004, He is a member of the Division of Sciences of the Royal Academy of Belgium.

Luce Irigaray is a Belgian-born French feminist, philosopher, linguist, psycholinguist, psychoanalyst, and cultural theorist who examined the uses and misuses of language in relation to women. Irigaray's first and most well known book, published in 1974, was Speculum of the Other Woman (1974), which analyzes the texts of Freud, Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Kant through the lens of phallocentrism. Irigaray is the author of works analyzing many thinkers, including This Sex Which Is Not One (1977), which discusses Lacan's work as well as political economy; Elemental Passions (1982) can be read as a response to Merleau‐Ponty's article “The Intertwining—The Chiasm” in The Visible and the Invisible, and in The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger (1999), Irigaray critiques Heidegger's emphasis on the element of earth as the ground of life and speech and his "oblivion" or forgetting of air.

Paul Virilio was a French cultural theorist, urbanist, architect and aesthetic philosopher. He is best known for his writings about technology as it has developed in relation to speed and power, with diverse references to architecture, the arts, the city and the military. Virilio was a prolific creator of neologisms, most notably his concept of "Dromology", the all-around, pervasive inscription of speed in every aspect of life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bogdanov affair</span> 2002 French academic dispute

The Bogdanov affair was an academic dispute regarding the legitimacy of a series of theoretical physics papers written by French twins Igor and Grichka Bogdanov. The papers were published in reputable scientific journals, and were alleged by their authors to culminate in a theory for describing what occurred before and at the Big Bang.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Obscurantism</span> Practice of obscuring information

In the fields of philosophy, the terms obscurantism and obscurationism identify and describe the anti-intellectual practices of deliberately presenting information in an abstruse and imprecise manner that limits further inquiry and understanding of a subject. The two historical and intellectual denotations of obscurantism are: (1) the deliberate restriction of knowledge — opposition to the dissemination of knowledge; and (2) deliberate obscurity — a recondite style of writing characterized by deliberate vagueness.

The science wars were a series of scholarly and public discussions in the 1990s over the social place of science in making authoritative claims about the world. Encyclopedia.com, citing the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, describes the science wars as the

<i>A Thousand Plateaus</i> 1980 book by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari

A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia is a 1980 book by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze and the French psychoanalyst Félix Guattari. It is the second and final volume of their collaborative work Capitalism and Schizophrenia. While the first volume, Anti-Oedipus (1972), was a critique of contemporary uses of psychoanalysis and Marxism, A Thousand Plateaus was developed as an experimental work of philosophy covering a far wider range of topics, serving as a "positive exercise" in what Deleuze and Guattari refer to as rhizomatic thought.

Nonsense is an utterance or written text that does not in fact carry any identifiable meaning.

Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs. It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in a collective understanding of the world. Such demonstrable knowledge has ordinarily conferred demonstrable powers of prediction or technology.

<i>The Logic of Sense</i> 1969 book by Gilles Deleuze

The Logic of Sense is a 1969 book by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. The English edition was translated by Mark Lester and Charles Stivale, and edited by Constantin V. Boundas.

Criticism of postmodernism is intellectually diverse, reflecting various critical attitudes toward postmodernity, postmodern philosophy, postmodern art, and postmodern architecture. Postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, especially those associated with Enlightenment rationality though postmodernism in the arts may have their own definitions. Thus, while common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress, critics of postmodernism often defend such concepts. It is frequently alleged that postmodern scholars promote obscurantism, are hostile to objective truth, and encourage relativism to an extent that is epistemically and ethically crippling. Criticism of more artistic post-modern movement such as post-modern art or literature may include objections to a departure from beauty, lack of coherence or comprehensibility, deviating from clear structure and the consistent use of dark and negative themes.

<i>What Is Philosophy?</i> (Deleuze and Guattari book) Book by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari

What is Philosophy? is a 1991 book by the philosopher Gilles Deleuze and the psychoanalyst Félix Guattari. The two had met shortly after May 1968 when they were in their forties and collaborated most notably on Capitalism & Schizophrenia and Kafka: Towards a Minority Literature (1975). In this, the last book they co-signed, philosophy, science, and art are treated as three modes of thought.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grievance studies affair</span> Group of bogus academic papers (2018)

The grievance studies affair was the project of a team of three authors—Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose—to highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and erosion of standards in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sokal, Alan; Jean Bricmont (1998). Fashionable Nonsense. New York: Picador. ISBN   978-0-312-19545-8. OCLC   39605994.
  2. Sokal, Alan; Jean Bricmont (1998). Intellectual Impostures. London: Profile Books. p. xii. ISBN   978-1-86197-631-4.
  3. 1 2 3 Epstein, Barbara (Winter 1997). "Postmodernism and the Left". New Politics . Archived from the original on May 12, 2008. Retrieved March 5, 2008. quote:
    Probably no one concerned with postmodernism has remained unaware of it. People have been bitterly divided. Some are delighted, some are enraged. One friend of mine told me that Sokal's article came up in a meeting of a left reading group that he belongs to. The discussion became polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal [...] Some of us who were delighted by Sokal's hoax, at one time had a more positive view of postmodernism.
  4. Sokal, Alan (May 1996). "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies". Lingua Franca . Retrieved March 5, 2008.
  5. Sokal and Bricmont, Appendix A.
  6. 1 2 Dawkins, Richard (9 July 1998). "Postmodernism Disrobed". Nature . 394 (6689): 141–143. Bibcode:1998Natur.394..141D. doi: 10.1038/28089 .
  7. Nagel, Thomas (2002). Concealment and Exposure & Other Essays . Oxford University Press. p.  164. ISBN   978-0-19-515293-7.
  8. Nagel, p. 165.
  9. Chomsky, Noam (February 2010). Science, Religion and Human Nature. The Chomsky Sessions. Interviewed by Albert, Michael. Z Communications. 8 minutes in. Transcript. Excerpt: Chomsky on Science and Postmodernism on YouTube.
  10. Buchwald, Diana K. (2007). "In Memory of Mara Beller (1945–2004)". Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly / עיון: רבעון פילוסופי. 56: 5–8. JSTOR   23354462.
  11. Beller, Mara. September 1998. "The Sokal Hoax: At Whom Are We Laughing?" Physics Today .
  12. 1 2 Fink, Bruce (2004). Lacan to the Letter . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. p.  130. ISBN   978-0-8166-4320-2.
  13. Sturrock, John (1998-07-16). "Le pauvre Sokal". London Review of Books. pp. 8–9. ISSN   0260-9592 . Retrieved 2018-10-17.
  14. Sokal and Bricmont, Appendix A.
  15. 1 2 3 Plotnitsky, Arkady (2002). The Knowable and the Unknowable . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN   978-0-472-09797-5.
  16. Plotnitsky, 2002, p. 145 (in Leibniz's original Latin, the quote reads: "Ex irrationalibus oriuntur quantitates impossibiles seu imaginariae, quarum mira est natura, et tamen non contemnenda utilitas").
  17. 1 2 3 Milner, Andrew; Browitt, Jeff (2002). Contemporary Cultural Theory (3rd ed.). Allen & Unwin. pp. 191–192. ISBN   978-1-86508-808-2.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Derrida, Jacques (2005) [1994]. Paper Machine . Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN   978-0-8047-4619-9.

Further reading