Product Description

The author of a parody of science and literary theory that was published as scholarship argues that many critics misuse scientific information they do not understand to make literary and philosophical points.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #100573 in Books
• Published on: 1999-11-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 320 pages

Customer Reviews

Required reading for all academics
As a university student of both physics and philosophy, this was certainly a refreshing read. After the many fruitless lessons I've spent trying to get points about physics across to philosophy students, it's nice to see it so well summed up. It's true that Bricmont and Sokal could use greater philosophical training, but their points about the abuse of physics are not lessened for all that.

The most interesting revelation of the book is the asymmetry between the natural and human sciences. While sociologists and philosophers without any scientific training can pontificate about what constitutes valid mathematical proofs and physical theories, any scientist pointing out the philosophers' (to a physicist) very obvious lack of understanding of basic physical concepts is branded as arrogant.

It's funny that while people don't expect the editors of the journal to know the physics involved, they don't care that the philosophical aspects were pure nonsense too. Shouldn't someone conversant with hermeneutics and the like have caught that?

This book should be required reading for anyone starting at a university-level education. Even if you don't agree with it, it will hopefully make you think.

Sacred Cows
After reading this work and re-reading all of the negative comments below, I can only presume that some people are in fear of having their sacred cows being served up for dinner.

From my perspective, the book is well balanced. Contrary to some allegations, Sokal and Bricmont go out of their way to limit their discussion to the abuse of science by some of those in the humanities. They explicitly state, several times, that they have no objections to the social sciences or the humanities *as a whole*, or even to the sections of work of those they criticize that don't attempt to use pseudo-scientific double-speak in order to prop up their positions. If anything, I think that Sokal and Bricmont are a little *too* generous to those they criticize.

I only subtract a star because they have an unfortunate tendancy to repeatedly quote long paragraphs of drivel from those they are offering critiques of. I needn't eat an entire egg in order to know that it is rotten.

Keep the aspirin handy!
What an ordeal the authors of this book must have endured in researching the material for it! Even wading through the snippets and samples used to illustrate their arguments is a mind-warping exercise. Describing the phenomenon of "postmodernism" as "nebulous Zeitgeist," they expand on the definition with characteristics of postmodernist writings. These elements are abuse of scientific terms and use of meaningless terminology, offering empty opinions on how science works and its impact on society. Manipulating science for philosophic ends might be considered harmless, if it was but an ignorant assault on the discipline alone. Instead, the deconstructionist view wants the whole of society to reconsider its roots in their lights - it is an intellectual revolution. Unlike other revolutions, however, postmodernism is purely destructive having no discernible aims.

The authors make a sincere effort to limit their diagnosis to a limited scope. They avoid judgment on the philosophies in general. By offering lengthy original quotes, countered by an analysis of the scientific principles clumsily interpreted by the PM writers, they invite readers to arrive at their own assessment. The reader is given brief but informative passages on the scientific topics in support of this exercise. It takes, however, a dedicated reader to wade through the morass of "profound prose" the PMs have conceived without querying its fundamental validity. What is interesting in their presentation is the focus on French sources. In this approach, they attack the contagion at its source. A diagnosis of its infection among North American academics isn't presented. That has been done elsewhere.

Yet the authors understand that the postmodernist movement has strong adherents in North America. This reaches far outside the university community to reach government policy makers, educators at all levels and even the business community. Among educators, postmodernist impact on feminist thinking has outstripped its role in other humanist issues. Feminists may not address specific scientific topics as such, but are given to broad sweeping statements castigating half of the human species. Luce Irigary is given much space in this book due to her outrageous assertions and her impact on North American feminism which adopts them gleefully. Sokal and Bricmont, in their conclusion, see this resulting in a violation on educational standards. It is, in truth, a raping of young minds. This book, then, is a sharp warning to those who force artificial standards on behaviour and school curricula. Read it, difficult as the postmodernist passages are, with the intention to look at the issues further. They are before you now and require action. It is your children who will benefit from what Sokal and Bricmont have offered. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]