Talk:Fashionable Nonsense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also the archive of earlier discussion.


Contents

[edit] what does this sentance mean?

"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."

i get the first part... but did Lacan base his work on his work? or did sokal etc particularly focus on lacan's work? i don't know. i'd change it but i haven't read the book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.182.108 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 May 2006

I think this sentence is innacurate. Of those mentioned in Fashionable nonsense, only Lacan himself, Kristeva Irigary and Badiou could be said to be "basing their work on Lacan". Lacan and the strong program, lacan and postmodernism, postmodernism and critical theory, critical theory and the strong programme and postmodernism and the strong programme are all pairs of things that have very little to do with each other, except for having taken place in roughly the same timeframe. Jimmyq2305 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section - yuk

The "Criticism" section of this article is very poorly written and basically useless. Much of it shows the deleterious effect of repeated insertion and deletion of opinionated sentences in random order. Almost none of the actual critics are named. They should be identified and quoted, with Sokal and Bricmont's reply also quoted. NO allegations should appear as our own opinions; we have to report the opinions of the involved parties, not argue the case ourselves. Unprovable claims like "Most scholars of science studies" should be avoided (unless a reference to where the survey establishing this as a fact is added). McKay 13:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't "inaccuracy of charges" be added to the criticism section? The way it is now, it seems like no one has even attempted to refute the charges of misuse of scientific terminology that S + B make. The way fink's response is presented (and the way it probably is, im unfamiliar with Lacan to the Letter), it seems that he is saying that their criticisms are irrelevant. In several cases, there have been specific responses to the charges of misuse that S+B allege (Stolzenberg responded to charges made against Latour, Lacan and Derrida, and Latour responded to charges made against himself, as did Badiou) and this should, IMHO be added to criticisms. Jimmyq2305 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is a whole litter of weasles: "Insofar as Sokal and Bricmont were even taken seriously within the fields they were criticizing, they have received sharp criticism for their own misunderstanding of the concepts they are attacking." Way to diguise the bias, boyo. Figureground 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political arguments

What text is it a summary of? How is this a criticism of the book? I'm honestly at a loss on both of these - it does not strike me as a sensible criticism of an attack on postmodernism that the attack is political. With no source of the criticism, and no sense to the criticism, I have trouble grasping why it shuold be included - it seems to be original research. 128.227.82.250 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bricmont and Sokal refuted? Mmmm... I'm not so certain

I would like to react to prof. Stolzenberg, and more specifically to parts of his texts “Reading and Relativism - An introduction to the science wars” and “A Physicist Experiments with Scholarly Discourse”. References to these texts are made in this discussion.

I'm uneasy about posting this long reaction here, but I'm doing it because readers of this discussion page may get the impression that prof. Stolzenberg has refuted a number of claims by Bricmont and Sokal. While I think his critique of “Fashionable Nonsense” sometimes is correct, I also think it is far less convincing than it seems to be. In one case, he gives a statement by Bricmont and Sokal the opposite meaning of what it says, and then concludes Bricmont and Sokal don't understand Irigaray. In the case of Latour, he actually (and perhaps contrary to his intention) helped me to better understand why Bricmont and Sokal are justified in their critique of Latour.

To laugh is a philosophical activity (sometimes)

Prof. Stolzenberg quotes Socrates: “What’s this, Polus? You’re laughing? Is this yet another kind of refutation which has you laughing at ideas rather than proving them wrong?”

Prof. Stolzenberg is angry that Bricmont and Sokal find some things funny. I don’t understand why. Laughing can be a significant philosophical act.

Let’s take as an example Maxwell’s Demon from Statistical Mechanics (prof. Stolzenberg refers to it somewhere in this discussion) and Lacan's use of topology to describe psycho-analytical phenomena (as mentioned in "Fashionable Nonsense"). Assume you’re a physicist. Convince yourself that Demons are risible nonsense. Laugh very hard – and then look at the Maxwell’s Demon again. Was your view on its physical content changed by your fun? No, it wasn’t. Whether you believe in Demons or not, the physical value of the argument stands. Make Maxwell’s argument a bit funnier by changing “Demon” to “Clever Martian with Green Ears” or “My Uncle’s Karma” – the physical message stands.

Now take Lacan. This time you’re a psycho-analyst. Convince yourself that mathematical topology is nonsense, utter silliness, “not even wrong” like Wolfgang Pauli used to say. Laugh very hard – and then look at Lacan again. Did your fun change your view on the psycho-analytical value of his words? Yes, it did. Suddenly you start to wonder why Lacan claims that ridiculous things describe psycho-analytical phenomena. Change “Klein’s Bottle” in Lacan’s writings into “My Uncle’s Karma” – does the psycho-analysis stand?

There are many variants of this experiment. One can also assume that Demons are real but Maxwell got his Demonology so wrong it’s ridiculous, and that topology is correct but Lacan is so ignorant about it that he’s funny. How did that change the physical (Maxwell) and psycho-analytical value (Lacan) of their writings? Etc., etc. A good laugh can be good philosophy.

Lacan

I accept that one doesn’t need differential topology to describe the mathematics Lacan is using. Bricmont and Sokal are probably misleading here. Prof. Stolzenberg argues quite convincingly that Lacan was referring to simpler approaches of mathematical topology. Lacan may have understood them well enough to apply them in his approach to psycho-analysis.

But even if this were correct, it stays unclear why these mathematical structures serve to Lacan as more than metaphorical evocations of something, rather as accurate descriptions of a mind – and that’s what Bricmont and Sokal are questioning.


Latour

Prof. Stolzenberg suggests that one can interpret Latour statements about actors in such a way that they do not contradict the physics of Special Relativity. But to me it seems that the source of his interpretation is the same as the source of Bricmont and Sokal’s alleged mis-interpretation: the lack of clarity by Latour.

Moreover, prof. Stolzenberg’s interpretation rests on a starting point that’s controversial. Latour mentions third parties (reference frames or actors, I don’t know). Prof. Stolzenberg points out that Latour, contrary to what Bricmont and Sokal seem to think, is not necessarily talking about distinct third parties. Prof. Stolzenberg writes “As a mathematician, when I talk about ‘three things,’ for example, the three roots of a cubic equation, I don’t necessarily mean three distinct things. It depends on the context.”

This is an enlightening comparison. The cubic equation “x cubed is equal to zero” has three roots that are identically zero. But why talk about three roots when they are identical? Because in general, a cubic equation can have three distinct roots (and never more than three). Therefore the expression “x cubed is zero has three roots” refers to the context of more general cubic equations. It just happens to be so that in this special case, these roots are identical (or, like mathematicians say, they have “multiplicity three”).

But now let’s consider quadratic equations. They never have three or more distinct roots. Therefore, a mathematician never says that a quadratic equation has three roots. To do so would not be wrong strictu sensu – the mathematician could always claim that two of these roots are identical. But this is out of the context of quadratic equations. Consider somebody who writes about these equations and gives a “third root” an important place in his text. I think this a strong argument that he misunderstood the mathematics involved, or at least that he is not writing about mathematics as we know it.

Now what is the context in Special Relativity? In the physics of Special Relativity one never needs a distinct third party (reference frame or actor). To me, Latour’s third party is akin to the famous third solution of a quadratic equation. Introducing it is not wrong strictu sensu – Latour can always claim that two of these three parties are identical or attached to the same reference frame. But the introduction of a third party is out of the physical context, and therefore misleading.

But perhaps Latour wasn’t writing about physics. Perhaps Latour’s third party is a sociological or didactical device. It may therefore be useful within a sociological or didactical context. But even then, one has to be very cautious introducing it. If one is not writing for a public of physicists, one should make clear that this third party goes against the physical context. Does Latour offer this clarity? Even prof. Stolzenberg has doubts. He writes: “Finally, in criticizing Sokal’s misreadings of Latour’s essay, I do not mean to suggest that it does not merit criticism. On the contrary, the very passages that Sokal quotes make me wonder whether Latour mistook things that Einstein has his cartoon observers do in order to explain the theory of relativity for what real physicists do when they use that theory.”

I think that Bricmont and Sokal are justified in their critique of Latour’s use of actors, if only because of the physical context.


How to quote

Prof. Stolzenberg writes

“Michael Harris’s wickedly perceptive observation about a related conceit of Sokal and Bricmont applies to Weinberg’s without significant change.

‘In some cases, we have quoted rather long passages, at the risk of boring the reader, in order to show that we have not misrepresented the meaning of the text by pulling sentences out of context. (Sokal and Bricmont 1998: 17.)’

This may satisfy those who imagine that the context of page 50 is pages 48-52, say, but if the context is an ongoing literary debate or an entire culture's orientation to mathematics and science, then the length of the quotations is irrelevant. To paraphrase remarks made by David Bloor, Sokal and Bricmont are ‘as it were, coming into the middle of a conversation that has been going on for some time.’”

But prof. Stolzenberg himself is guilty of some misdemeanours in this respect. He is for example misrepresenting Impostures Intellectuelles’ part about “locations” in the chapter about Latour.

“Consider next Sokal’s claim that Latour ‘somehow got the idea that relativity concerns the problems raised by the relative location (rather than the relative motion) of different observers.’ It is impossible to read Latour’s essay about relativity without noticing that it is dominated by a consideration of two reference frames in relative motion—the two discussed above. But perhaps Sokal forgot this when he came upon the following passage from Latour’s essay, which is the evidence he offers for his accusation.”

With this last sentence, prof. Stolzenberg is misleading the reader. In my (French) version of “Impostures Intellectuelles”, many more examples are offered of Latour talking about locations where velocities would be more appropriate physically. The evidence is not based on one passage. But let’s go on with that “following passage from Latour’s essay”:

“Provided the two relativities [special and general] are accepted, more frames of reference with less privilege can be assessed, reduced, accumulated and combined, observers can be delegated to a few more places in the infinitely large (the cosmos) and the infinitely small (electrons), and the readings they send back will be understandable. His [Einstein’s] book could well be titled: “New Instructions for Bringing Back Long- Distance Scientific Travellers.”

Einstein’s book is about Special Relativity. A ‘Long Distance’ is not necessary for Special Relativity to enter the scene – but a high relative velocity is. Therefore, it is odd that somebody who understands Special Relativity suggests this as a title for Einstein’s book. Prof. Stolzenberg is indignant because Sokal and Bricmont do not leave open the possibility that for Latour these Travellers have a high relative velocity. However, from a logical point of view Latour writes “… Long-Distance Scientific Travellers (whether they are rapidly moving relative to each other or not)” I agree with Sokal and Bricmont: this suggests Latour didn’t understand the physical content of Special Relativity.


On goats and humans

Prof. Stolzenberg quotes Sokal:

“Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are merely social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)” (Sokal 1996)

Prof. Stolzenberg then goes on:

“What is funny is the idea that knowledge of the relevant laws of physics has anything to do with why people and goats normally do not jump out of windows.”

This is a remarkable misunderstanding of Sokal. He doesn’t say that precise knowledge of physical laws is relevant for the outcome of his experiment nor for the willingness of people to jump out of windows.

Prof. Stolzenberg writes as well that there are social constructions one cannot do something about. But it is unclear to me what this says about Sokal’s experiment. To take another experiment, that is superficially similar to Sokal’s but that more clearly involves social constructions. Try driving 100 mph on the wrong side of the road in Brussels for an hour. Even Sokal wouldn’t do it, I assume, because it is as deadly as jumping from the 21th floor. But to me Sokal’s real question is: why will you die when you do these experiments? Social aspects may explain why one does not jump out of 21th floor windows or drive on the wrong side of the road. But what is the actual reason you die from heavy collisions, be it with a pavement or with another motorized vehicle? Does prof. Stolzenberg claim this reason is a social construction?

By the way, the inclusion of “goats” in prof. Stolzenberg’s quote is intriguing. Is a goat’s reality socially constructed as well? How does it work? In principle it’s possible to raise a goat in isolation from other goats and in such a way that it never sees any living being drop dead from a fall. Would it be easier to convince it to jump from the 21th floor? It’s an interesting experiment.


Irigaray

Prof. Stolzenberg quotes Sokal and Bricmont on Irigaray’s idea that E = Mc2 is “sexed”. They write:

“Whatever one may think about the ‘other speeds that are vitally necessary to us,’ the fact remains that the relationship E = Mc2 between energy (E) and mass (M) is experimentally verified to a high degree of precision, and it would obviously not be valid if the speed of light (c) were replaced by another speed.” (Sokal and Bricmont in “Fashionable Nonsense”)

Prof. Stolzenberg reacts as follows:

“This shows especially poor judgment. If Sokal and Bricmont think that something that is privileged can easily be replaced, there is little reason to suppose that they have any idea of what Irigaray is talking about.”

Sokal and Bricmont are saying that E = Mc2 is an accurate description of reality. Replace “c” by any other velocity and the description isn’t accurate anymore. Sokal and Bricmont clearly DON’T think it can be replaced easily. Prof. Stolzenberg gives here an interpretation that’s the opposite of what they write.

Sokal and Bricmont quote Irigaray in their book:

“In mathematical sciences (…) They concern themselves very little with the question of the partially open, with sets that are not clearly delineated [ensembles flous], with any analysis of the problem of borders [bords]… “ (Irigaray)

They point out that this is not a correct description of mathematics. However, prof. Stolzenberg barely sees a reference to mathematical topology in this quote. I find this puzzling. Borders, open, partially open etc. are all studied in topology, at least in the topology I learned. Irigaray writes by her own admission about mathematics. Therefore, Bricmont and Sokal are correct to point out that Irigaray is wrong, and that mathematics does study partially open sets and the problem of borders. It does so, for example, in algebraic topology and differential geometry. It couldn’t have been too difficult for Irigaray to find that out. Perhaps she wasn’t thinking about these branches of mathematics, but they are part of the mathematical sciences she’s is talking about. So what is wrong with Bricmont and Sokal’s critique? Besides, in “Impostures Intellectuelles”, Bricmont and Sokal offer more examples to show that Irigaray misrepresents the mathematics and physics she’s writing about.

Prof. Stolzenberg suggests that Irigaray wanted to say that topology is of questionable use to analyse some non-mathematical questions about borders. I suspect – but I do not know for sure – that many physicists find this statement sensible. I also think this is a weak defence of Irigaray. First of all: to see the above quote in this light doesn’t make the incorrect description of mathematics go away. But secondly, by referring to Kundera, prof. Stolzenberg suggests that Irigaray is not only talking about mathematical borders. Perhaps she isn’t even talking about mathematical borders in the first place, except to mention that they are of little use. But why then does she dress up her statement with awkward references to mathematics? Mathematics does study borders, but does that change that it may be of little use?

Deleuze and Guattari

In my version of "Impostures Intellectuelles" Bricmont and Sokal do not claim Deleuze and Guattari are writing about chaos theory. Perhaps Sokal once claimed they were, and perhaps that was a mistake, but the mistake is not in "Impostures Intellectuelles". Then why is this mistake by Sokal mentioned in this discussion?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliaspg (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 November 2006

[edit] Undue weight

Phil Sandifier This is an article about the book, not a discussion about what they say. There is no sense in which you can say that outlining the contents of the arguments is undue weight. Please do not attempt to censor WP. MarkAnthonyBoyle 17:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to censor WP. But the Lacan section of the book amounts to a very small percentage of the book, and to write a section focusing purely on it misrepresents its overall weight in the book. If you want to write a section-by-section summary of the book, go for it, but this article cannot be hijacked into a "criticisms of Lacan" article. Phil Sandifer 19:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Any one section of the book is bound to be small. The material seems quite typical of the overall intention of the book. Perhaps it could go back as another example, around the Luce Irigaray e=mc2 stuff William M. Connolley 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I did originally propose something very much like this, but Mark reverted - I think that is the more reasonable choice - I'm not averse to some explanation of their critique of Lacan, especially as the criticism of their book that the article cites is mostly Lacanian at this point, but Mark's version is a POV problem in that it erroneously implies the attack on Lacan to be one of the book's major points. Phil Sandifer 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you've cut too much - there is now no real hint as to what Lacan has said that is so wrong. Some direct quote should be in there William M. Connolley 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
From Lacan or from S&B? I have the "gibberish" quote. I could add the square root of negative one as phallus quote - it's a good one. It'll have to wait an hour or two for me to get home to where I have the book, though. Phil Sandifer 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy summary

I'm a bit concerned, reading these lengthy summaries. Not so much because of NPOV concerns, as that I feel like we're using a tremendous number of words to say the same things over and over again. Reading, say the Kristeva section and the Irigaray section one after another, one does not get the sense that Sokal and Bricmont's criticisms of one are particularly different from their criticisms of the other. Little is done to elucidate the differences in thought between Kristeva and Irigaray (which is sensible, as the article is about neither, and Sokal and Bricmont make no attempt to summarize their thought), and so I am had pressed to answer the question of how one section is meaningfully distinct from the other.

Which mostly seems like poor writing. Any thoughts on how we could improve this? Because as it stands, I feel like one section outlining their general criticisms of postmodernism with spceific examples from various people would be preferable to this still-incomplete and highly repetitive approach. Phil Sandifer 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we wait until I've finished the chapter by chapter summary. Putting a lengthy chapter of say 50 pages into a "25 words or less" format is going to take some time. I do have other things to do (in the real world) WP is a work in progress. WP is not perfect. Have you read the book Phil? Do you have something constructive to add? Perhaps you would like to rip out everything I written and just leave a footnote, say "FN is a book, but it's not very good, I didn't like it."

Are you perhaps one of those people in the arts who have a vested interest in avoiding criticism of the PoMo canon? Or are you one of Lacan's "disciples"? Just what is your problem with this book?MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read the book, actually - I just looked something up in it for my dissertation a moment ago. And while I am less than fond of the book (I'll cop to most of the current criticism section being my writing - though, notably, I've removed far more criticism as being unsourced), It's undoubtedly of cultural and even academic significance.
My problem with the article, as it stands, is that I sincerely think it a worse article than it was before the summary sections were added. There are several reasons for that - first of all, I think the summary sections are generally unpolished and hard to follow - they do not summarize any content usefully to someone who is unfamiliar with both the mathematics and the context of the philosophical works. Whatever flaws I may find in Sokal and Bricmont's work, this is not one of them - their book is wonderfully lucid in exactly the manner that this article is not. Second, I repeat my criticism above - the summary sections are horrendously repetitive, and amount to a sound bite quoting of Sokal and Bricmont that could be just as easily generated by a thesaurus. Lacan is gibberish, Kristeva is superficial, Irigaray is bizarre. What distinguishes these three claims is less than clear, and nothing is added that is not already present in the earlier note that all three thinkers are singled out for special criticism. Finally, the sections are positively barbaric from the perspective of NPOV - the Irigaray section in particular routinely treats Sokal and Bricmont's attacks as fact, with such conceits as putting "arguments" in scare quotes when describing Irigaray.
None of this is surprising, because Sokal and Bricmont are relatively clear that their book is not a series of essays critiquing the thought of various thinkers. Indeed, they explicitly disclaim such a task in their introduction: "we are not competent to judge the non-scientific aspects of these authors' work" (7). With the possible exception of Latour, then, that mitigates against the approach taken in this article. The book is very narrow - a catalogue of scientific errors that, in their view, mar the basic intellectual foundations of postmodernism as, well, fashionable nonsense. But I see little evidence that the book is intended as a series of individual critiques of the thinkers, so much as a series of case studies in a larger critique of postmodernism. In which case the "case study" approach this article atkes is bound to mislead - we would be better suited by sections outlining the various objections Sokal and Bricmont raise - inappropriate use of analogies, poorly understood scientific concepts, pseudoscience like Lacan's algebra - and bolster them with the sorts of examples they use. This, I think, would be far more faithful to the argument of the book.
As it stands, this expansion of summary smacks of an attempt to push the (well-sourced) criticism section as far down the page as possible, and to reduce its prominance in the article. This is unfortunate as well - the September 10th version (found here: [1] was, frankly, well-balanced - five paragraphs of explanation of their views, four of critique. Though, notably, I prefer the current, shorter critique section to the one on the September 10th version (which was poorly organized, in hindsight).
To this end, I strongly advocate the removal of the summaries, or, alternatively, the dispersal of the examples given in the summaries throughout the earlier sections to illustrate specific points. Phil Sandifer 00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of soundbite accepted. I may well be guilty of creating a too dense summary. Would be happy if someone decided to add something to flesh this out. As to critique, can you show me where in WP policy it states that critiques of the subject should have equal prominence to the content of the main article? I don't understand what you mean by "attempt to push the criticism section down as far as possible", perhaps you would like the criticism section at the top, with only a brief outline of the content, well critiqued as well? I have not made any attempt to edit the criticism section at all. It seems to me that this section is already larger than most criticism sections in other articles. Should we apply the same weighting (5/4)to Freud, Lacan, critical theory(no criticism section at all), Kristeva(no criticism section), Irigaray. You have not long ago acused me of trying push POV for adding criticism to some of those articles. Have a look at the edit summaries of the work I did on Lacan. I added content, re-wrote sections to make the content clearer without losing any of the original meaning, and sorted out the chronology. I did this in good faith, in consultation with other editors, and with their blessing, despite, as you constantly acuse, being "unfailingly critical of him". It is quite clear to me that your constant reverts, deletions and harping on about undue weight are not motivated by good faith, but rather an attempt to push a POV. I think your real beef, given what you have written on this page and elsewhere, is that you don't like any criticism of Lacan being made explicit, which this current write, albeit a "brutal" summary of their "lucid" writing does because it is in chapter form. I would remind you that an article in an encyclopedia is not a discussion of whether you or I agree with an author's work, nor should the talk pages be. This starting to feel like harassment. You are, of course, welcome to make constructive edits. If you want to clarify sections, flesh out details, and the like, I would welcome that. Otherwise, please get off my case. MarkAnthonyBoyle 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The bit where we have to give appropriate and equal prominance to all major viewpoints would be WP:NPOV - the fundamental content policy of the site. And this is hardly harassment - Lacan and this are both on my watchlist. I notice things that go on there. I've no idea what other articles you edit, but these two are ones I edit. And, frankly, I think your edits to this article hurt the article. Phil Sandifer 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What now?

Within the humanities, the response to Fashionable Nonsense has generally been dismissive. On the whole, few major critics have engaged with the book in a prolonged fashion. What responses do exist have largely focused on the book's engagement with Lacan.

your tag:The context is important here. Do not go down this road. I am, for the time being, willing to tolerate the poor rewriting of this article, but don't try to make it POV like this.

Why did you put this back in? It seems plainly a case of unverifiable POV to me. Cite it to a source or take it out. MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. You're trying to scour any criticism from this article that you can. It's bad enough that you're bloating it with further redundant and poorly written summary, but you cannot weaken the criticism section by removing the important fact that the book is a laughingstock in the field it's trying to criticize. And, being that the point is that the book was totally ignored, it's somewhat difficult to find a source for that.
If you want to go down that road, fine. But if you're going to cross that line into actively trying to make the article as POV as possible, I'm going to start scouring the summary as the POV inflation it is. Phil Sandifer 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MarkAnthonyBoyle:

  • The rococo tabernacle of intellectual chic, Theory enjoyed vogue in universities worldwide, but now finds itself closely interrogated. So great has postmodernism's own crisis become that at the start of semester in a compulsory Theory-based writing unit at one Sydney university, students had their tutor commiserate for the pain they would have to endure, and hand around chocolates ... In some ways comparable to John Howard's like-minded scientists who have for the past decade reassured us that all is well and that the earth does indeed remain flat.

    [[2]]

I can cite an opinion contrary to yours, can you cite yours? Or is it just your own opinion? NPOV requires you to cite or remove that line. MarkAnthonyBoyle 05:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have:

there followed a relative avalanche of articles ridiculing Social Text in the The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, many local mainstream papers throughout the country, plus The Village Voice, The Nation, ITT, and so on.

cited to here [[3]] But then there's Chomsky (he is in the humanities I believe)

On theory, I don't object to the fact that postmodernism has no theories (i.e., nothing that could sustain a non-trivial argument). No one else does either, when we turn to human affairs or the kinds of things they are discussing. What I object to is that they proudly claim otherwise. Their productions are put forth as "grand theory," too deep for ordinary mortals to understand -- at least for me: I don't understand it, and am skeptical about whether there is any "theory" to understand. That's a great technique for enhancing one's own privilege while marginalizing the slobs. Does it serve any other function? If so, what? Am I missing some of the great achievements? If so, what?

[[4]] Then there's Sokal himself

Sokal also reports that "people have told me that this is the talk of every dinner, cocktail party, etc. I've received an incredible amount of e-mail saying the same thing. A significant amount of it is from people in the humanities and social sciences -- many of them on the left -- who have been fed up with this nonsense for years, and are thrilled that an outsider (who therefore had nothing to lose) has dared to reveal the emperor's nakedness. The Emperor's New Clothes metaphor is recurrent, and indeed I do identify with the little boy who blurts out, naively, that the king is naked."

[[5]] Barbara Ehrenreich (she's in the humanities):

No, of course not. In fact, the real fight with false science, for example sexist science, has not been fought by women throwing post modernist mush. They've been fought with reason. Scientists say that women's brains are smaller and it means we're dumb. We can answer that. But the effective response has not been to throw Lacan at them or Foucault. Now why is this happening. There are sociological explanations. They're not original to me, but the sociological kind of explanation that I've heard among academics who are critical of this trend is that there is a crisis of professionalization in the last 15 or 20 years in the teaching of English and literature in particular.

[[6]]

MarkAnthonyBoyle 09:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I could - but I don't tend to think that, for instance, Ehrenreich in an interview that does not even mention Sokal or the book, makes an adequate response. Phil Sandifer 13:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this one then:

Credit for squelching this peculiar trend goes largely to one man, NYU physicist -- and it should be mentioned, leftist -- Alan Sokal. Three years ago, he submitted a parody of postmodernist thought to the postmodernist journal Social Text, which article purported to mock, in true postmodernist fashion, the silly old "dogma" that "there exists an external world," asserting instead that "physical `reality'" is just "a social and linguistic construct." The Social Text editors, thrilled to have a physicist defecting to their side, published the piece. In short order, the hoax was revealed and, to what should have been the terminal mortification of pomos everywhere, found its way into the New York Times. Then, just a few months ago, Sokal and the Belgian physicist Jean Bricmont delivered the coup de grace with their new book Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science, in which they skewer the towering prophets of French postmodernism -- including Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva and Jean Baudrillard -- for their bizarre and pompous gibberish.

[[7]]

Your line "Within the humanities, the response to Fashionable Nonsense has generally been dismissive.", as it stands, gives the impression that "the humanities" is as one in it's adherence to postmodernism and it's dismissal of this book. It was the case, (still is), that some in the humanities were, perhaps many were. It was not, (and is not), the case that the humanities 'generally' were (or are) dismissive. You could say, for example, "the response from the postmodernists was generally dismissive", or the "response from some in the humanities was generally dismissive", but, currently the line is does not adhere to NPOV. (WP:CITE) MarkAnthonyBoyle 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Then there is Barbara Epstein:

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; it nearly turned into a shouting match.... people who have expressed support for Sokal, such as Ruth Rosen (a feminist historian), Katha Pollitt (a feminist journalist), Jim Weinstein (editor of In These Times), Michael Albert (editor of Z Magazine), myself

[[8]]

Doesn't sound dismissive to me. Sounds more like a strong, passionate and lively debate. MarkAnthonyBoyle 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ehrenreich is not 'in the humanities' - she is a journalistic non-fiction writer with an advanced degree in biology. Chomsky is not 'in the humanities'. He is a linguist. Sokal is obviously not in the humanities. Barbara Epstein, Katha Pollit, Jim Weinstein, Michael Albert - none of them are 'in the humanities'. Ruth Rosen is. Boghossian and Nagel are. The only part of the humanities that I am aware of that takes fashionable nonsense seriously at all is analytic philosophy.12.167.241.106 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh. Thanks for that - I had been conflating Barbara Epstein with Barbara Herrnstein Smith and taking that critique more seriously than I should have. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page cleanup

Regarding my latest edit to this talk page: I have gone through the page history and attributed unsigned and "orphaned" comments (i.e., parts of multiple-paragraph comments that have been "isolated" by intervening remarks inserted by others), changed the indenting of some comments (and in one case, the "insertion point" of a comment) when it seemed necessary to clarify the flow of the discussion, and inserted a section header at one point to replace a less-appealing horizontal rule. The only real change in content, however, was reverting a "grammar fix" that someone made to one of my own comments (I reverted it back to my original wording). So, even though it looks like a lot of changes, they are, for the most part, only cosmetic. I might be back later to actually archive a large portion of this page, since it's grown to over 100K. - dcljr (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. There is a lot of "old" talk here. While it is useful, it's not particularly current. MarkAnthonyBoyle 02:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pending archival

Unless anyone objects (or does it first), I plan to archive the first 13 sections of this talk page (through #Michel Callon, dated 31 October 2005) next weekend. - dcljr (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summaries

The summaries seem to have bogged down again, leaving us with the same problem we've always had with them - they're poorly written, repetitive, and selective. Sokal and Bricmont level basically the same accusations against everybody (Unless I'm missing some subtle difference between Lacan being "gibberish" while Irigaray is "bizarre" and Kristeva is "superficial"), and the summary still does not add anything to the article that is not added by the list of theorists and the basic summary of Sokal and Bricmont's objectives. Furthermore, as the summaries generally exclude accounts of what the theorists in question are doing, they are hopelessly unclear - I know Kristeva's work well (and have in fact taken a class with her), and even I'm left puzzled by the account of what she's doing in this article. Phil Sandifer 16:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do wish these complaints were being answered with something other than more poorly written summaries. The Baudrillard one is the worst yet. Phil Sandifer 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the summaries. In their current form, they were simply not useful, and did not provide a foundation that could be edited into something useful. Phil Sandifer 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What did you want me to answer Phil? The fact that you didn't like the summaries? or the fact that you had a seminar with Kristeva?

From WP:GFCA

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy. Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.

From WP:NPOV

The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"

From WP:EP

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting, try to: rephrase correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content; move text within an article or to another article (existing or new); add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced; request a citation by adding the {{Fact}} tag

Considering that I have done nothing other than quote and paraphrase the book, the style of writing is consistent with the book, and short of quoting the whole book, will be by nature abrupt and terse. Given that the book is important (as evidenced by your constant intervention in this article), I think the article should endeavour to outline why it is important. The way I have chosen to do that is by outlining or summarising the chapters in the book. Please don't delete all this content. It is not helpful. You are of course welcome to reword it, if you think it is difficult to read. If you continue to disruptively edit this article I think we will need to take this matter to third party comment.MarkAnthonyBoyle 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You have quoted and paraphrased the book. At great length. But excessive summary is not the job of Wikipedia - we routinely trim excessive synopses from fiction articles. The same should apply here - this is excessive summary. Furthermore, it's summary that has major POV problems - as you admit, your tone is consistent with the tone of the book. That's not NPOV. The encyclopedia's tone should not match that of its subject, but take a detached form. i.e., "Sokal and Bricmont claim X" instead of simply asserting X. I do not see a way to improve these summaries from their current form, and so have removed them. Phil Sandifer 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The humanities en bloc

It is difficult to find any figures on the extent of postmodernist thought in academia. So far the best I can find is a survey of Visual Arts teachers asking what they thought were important theories to teach their students.

The surveys were mailed to attendees of the 1994 Visual Communication conference, members of the International Visual Literacy Association (IVLA), and members of the graphics division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC). A total of 350 surveys were mailed and 37 usable responses were received--15 were returned as undeliverable and 10 people responded that they were not "theoretical" and didn't know how to answer the questions....Communication theory and literary studies including postmodern theories followed with six mentions.

It's not much to go on, but from this it would appear that, in the visual arts at least, in 1994, only 6 out 350 teachers thought that Postmodernism was an important thing to teach their students. That's about 1.7%. It's the only survey of numbers I can find so far, but it seems to indicate that, at least in the Visual Arts, PoMos are a very small minority. [9] MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, to assume that the remaining 313 all oppose postmodernism is not a valid inference. Second of all, the relation between undergraduate teaching and valid research interests is complex, and the statement "I do not believe that postmodernism is important to teach" is not only not equivalent, but not even related to the statemetn "I do not believe that postmodernism is important." Third of all, the visual arts are a productive, not critical field. Fourth of all, given that the survey predates the book by 4 years, why in the name of God is this relevant? Fifth of all, it is far harder to come up with a useful definition of "postmodernist thought" than it is to observe that, without exception, the top humanities departments in the US, at least, are dominated by theoretical modes of thought that depend heavily on the authors criticized by Fashionable Nonsense.
You might want to be careful there. Your agenda is showing. Phil Sandifer 04:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, what are you talking about? The survey did not assume anything of the sort you describe. It merely indicates that, in the visual arts at least, 3 years before the publication of the book (about the time of the Sokal Affair) only 1.7% of people who were asked thought that postmodernism was so important they could be bothered responding to the survey saying it was important. As I said it isn't much to go on. But can you give any studies that support your contention that "without exception, the top humanities departments in the US, at least, are dominated by theoretical modes of thought that depend heavily on the authors criticized by Fashionable Nonsense." Some numbers would be good here. I have given cited references above. You have so far provided nothing other than your own opinion. MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's another link: [10], I don't know much about this guy, but he seems to think that only English/Lit and History depts have any significant PoMo influence. The "humanities" that you claim are en bloc dismissive of Sokal and Bricmont include

Anthropology: there are postmodernist strains in cultural and social anthropology, none at all in physical anthropology. This, of course, has resulted in the bifurcation of Anthropology Departments at some universities. Classics: postmodernism has had little or no impact. Economics: postmodernism has had no impact. Law: postmodernism has had little impact, outside certain areas like Critical Race Theory whose impact on most other branches of law has been minimal. Postmodernism has had no impact on the mainstream of jurisprudence. Linguistics: postmodernism has had no impact. Philosophy: postmodernism has had no impact in the mainstream, some influence at the margins. Political Science: postmodernism has had some impact on political theory as practiced in Poli Sci departments, almost no impact at all on the rest of the discipline (international and comparative politics, public law, American politics, formal and rational choice theory). Psychology: postmodernism has had little or no impact. Sociology: postmodernism has had some impact in social theory, and little or no impact in the quantitative and empirical branches of the discipline, which dominate the field.

Even in the English/Lit and History depts opinion is divided. Just what do you mean when you say "humanities"? Who's agenda is showing, do you think? MarkAnthonyBoyle 06:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make some comments about the assertion "without exception, the top humanities departments in the US, at least, are dominated by theoretical modes of thought that depend heavily on the authors criticized by Fashionable Nonsense." It's not even close to my realm of expertise (and I'm very sympathetic to Sokal), but I'd say this statement coincides with what I hear my friends (PhD candidates) in the humanities say. I realize that's not reliable, verifiable sources, but I did want to add my anecdotal evidence to this discussion. One of my better friends (who is pursuing his PhD in English), is quite willing to make fun of these theoretical modes of thought, but at the same time what makes them so fun to him is the very fact that they do dominate the top humanities departments. (I'm at the University of Virginia, which I believe has one of the top humanities departments.) I'll take it a step further: the very reason why Sokal and Bricmont felt it necessary to write this book is because the top humanities departments (and I wouldn't necessarily restrict it to the US) "are dominated by theoretical modes of thought that depend heavily on the authors criticized by Fashionable Nonsense." Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment Ben, but what I was objecting to is the characterization that "the response from the humanities was generally dismissive". Your friend is in an English department, English Lit is just a small section of "the humanities". While it might be true to say "some sections of the humanities" or "some in the humanities" or "those in English departments" or "those in Media Studies" were generally dismissive, I don't think that the claim "the humanities in general was dismissive" is supportable. I think the claims above that characterize the reaction as being "divided" are more accurate. At least that is my experience from my perch here in Australia, where it is true to say that while postmodernism had a stranglehold on some areas, it was by no means unanimous. "[There] is a significant...amount [of] people in the humanities and social sciences...who have been fed up with this nonsense for years, and are thrilled that an outsider (who therefore had nothing to lose) has dared to reveal the emperor's nakedness."[11] MarkAnthonyBoyle 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is accurate too: "Many professors and other intellectuals, of all political shades, also accept this equation. Left intellectuals who object to postmodernism tend to complain in private but remain largely silent in public, largely because they have not learned to speak the postmodernist vocabulary"[12]MarkAnthonyBoyle 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, even when they have learned to speak the postmodernist vocabulary, at least one person (my friend, who I'll definitely not name) remains silent "in public" due to the fact that he's still under the system instead of above it (i.e., tenured). But yes, you're right that my assertion was mainly geared towards the English departments. As a techie, I don't really have a good grasp of the breadth of "the humanities", although I do also have some experience now in anthropology (due to a side project I'm working on). In that department, I think they don't think much about postmodernism (not as in they look down on it, but as in it doesn't really enter into their professional lives). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Anthropology is also usually put under social sciences. Phil Sandifer 13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but are "social sciences" considered part of the humanities? I.e., are you saying anthropology is part of the humanities (as I was assuming) or is not? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
They're sometimes classified there, especially if one wants a binary distinction of science and not-science. But more often they're considered distinct from humanities and sciences, since they tend to be more empirically based and more invested in falsifiability than the humanities, but to still take human action instead of natural phenomenon as their field of study, unlike the sciences. I would not make any claim that postmodernism holds particular sway in the social sciences (which include anthropology, political science, sociology, psychology, and, in many definitions, history) - for one thing, postmodernism is poorly suited to empirical research. Phil Sandifer 14:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to approach this subject

Here's the issue with this book - it's, without question, an important book. But it's a book with a very uneasy place in the humanities. By its own admission, it isn't engaging the arguments of the thinkers it criticizes. And it badly misunderstands what it is the thinkers are trying to do. On the other hand, its basic claim that the use of science is not recognizable as science is absolutely correct - nobody defends, for example, the Lacan equation cited in the article as valid mathematics. But that misses the point, as Lacan isn't using it as such either.

As a result, the book is something of an echo chamber in practice - those who do not understand or who reject the basic methodological approaches of postmodernism find in it a confirmation of their views. Those who accept the basic methodological approaches of postmodernism find in it a book that curiously misses the point.

Furthermore, the book is, in its structure, a catalogue of instances where scientific concepts are used contrary to their scientific meaning. (I hesitate to call these instances errors, as they are, I think, almost all deliberate) This catalogue is connected by brilliantly written invective (My favorite remains, of Irigaray, "Cosmic rhythms, relation to the universe - what on earth is she talking about?" Though any use of the word gibberish is also good). But the catalogue doesn't really say much - in terms of how the book is structured, virtually everything the book claims is said in the first 17 pages. The rest is a hilarious list of examples. But those aren't the argument of the book, and exactly what it is they point to is more or less entirely dependant on how one takes the first 17 pages of the book - if one accepts Sokal and Bricmont's approach as a meaningful engagement with what "postmodernism" is doing then the book is a damning catalogue. If one (as most postmodernists, and, by extension, most prominant humanities scholars do) doesn't, the rest of the book is really water off a duck.

Which poses a problem when writing about the book - because in a meaningful sense, the lion's share of what the book does is in the first 17 pages. The rest is examples. For the purposes of encyclopedic coverage of the book, though, the first 17 pages are where the action is.

To my mind, sensible coverage of this book would do the following.

  1. Establish the argument laid out in the first 17 pages.
  2. Establish the sort of examples used - I would, here, think that Lacan is probably the best one to use. First of all, the invective against him is particularly colorful. Second of all, it's the example later used in the criticism section, and so provides a certain continuity in terms of the article's structure.
  3. Establish the social impact of the book (I think here the Epstein and Dawkins are great sources - particularly the Dawkins, as it shows very well the response the book got among non-humanities people)
  4. Establish the humanities response to the book (currently done in the criticism section)

Right now the vast majority of the article is spent doing #2, which does not seem to me a productive organization. And, much as I look, I am hard pressed to find a good way of revising the summary section, simply because the problem is really that it doesn't belong in the article - an article on a book like this should not simply cover every example given. To do so misses the forest for the trees. Phil Sandifer 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

These sound reasonable to me. Of course, I've never read the book. :) I do know my friend frequently talks about Lacan—in a favorable way. We've had a few debates about how poorly I think Lacan understands science. I will say this, although my friend is quite indoctrinated into the humanities, he is incredibly gifted in his understanding of the sciences as well. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that captures the basic issue with Sokal and Bricmont. If you assume that what Lacan is doing is supposed to be science as such, Lacan is clearly a lunatic. Sokal and Bricmont show why this is the case very persuasively. Lacan's advocates, however, don't make that assumption. As a result, the debate in terms of S&B is more about the premise ("Lacan is doing science in some sense") than about the conclusion ("If this is science, this is nonsense.") Phil Sandifer 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the most constructive thing you have said about this article so far Phil. But first let's clear up a few things. See the article on the Humanities. "Most postmodernists, and, by extension, most prominant humanities scholars" is a somewhat biased definition. That may be how it looks from one side of The Two Cultures. And no doubt it is how it appears to postmodernists. But I think my point stands. From what I have read (and heard and seen, but that is anecdotal, and beside the point here, it's not about me, or you Phil), there are many in the humanities who don't hold that position. It may be the case that, as Ben seems to indicate, that PoMos hold a high degree of power in some departments on some campuses, (which is cause for alarm if we must keep quiet or risk our jobs) but for those who don't, the demystifying and liberating power of this book is in no small part due to the comprehensive demolition job it does on a range of "luminaries". I think it important that this information be available. It's a public interest issue, particularly for the debate around these issues. It is of particular importance for time-poor students and staff in universities, and for those, like Ben, who haven't read the book. And given the size of articles like Pokémon, Nintendo 64 and Intelligent design, I don't see why we can't have a bit of detail here. I mean, what is the problem? If it is "water off a ducks back", then just let those geese who think it worth investing the time in writing it up (like me) get on with it. See also very large articles such as Discovery Institute, Neighbours, Criticism of Wikipedia, Guns N' Roses, The Simpsons. Don't forget all the minor subpages that go with some of these. WP:PAPER MarkAnthonyBoyle 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a possible compromise that both of you two might agree to: what if there's a second article created that focuses on the examples that Phil is referring to? This article would focus on the book roughly along the layout that Phil describes, mention a few examples (as Phil suggested), but in that discussion the {{main}} template refers to the secondary article for those interested in more. Thus, we focus on the primary debate about the book (I'm assuming you don't disagree with Phil's description of that premise) about whether Lacan is doing science or not, but we don't short-change our readers, either. Thoughts? (I'm really trying to work here more as a mediator than as an editor as I'm obviously quite ignorant on the book itself.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I really think both of you are not only operating in good faith, but are also trying hard to be neutral. As you mention, Mark, that can be difficult for people on one side or the other of The Two Cultures, but remember both of you suffer from that problem—it's just different sides. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts Ben. I appreciate your good faith in this matter. That compromise would work for me. But I can't resist one last comment. Firstly, what makes you think I am from the opposite side of the The Two Cultures? Not that it makes a skeric of difference to this debate, I have spent my entire working life in the humanities (which is why I think this book is so important). And secondly, I don't see why Harold Bishop, a character in the soap opera Neighbours, should have a longer page than a contentious and important book like Fashionable Nonsense. I mean, the entry for Neighbours, and soap opera for that matter, function like the hubs of whole internet sites in their own right. And good luck to them, but I don't see why my humble efforts have to be the subject of constant deletion and suppression? For goodness sakes Mzoli's meats has an entry as big as this one was before I started writng it. Doesn't this seem a bit odd? MarkAnthonyBoyle 01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a faulty assumption based off of the fact that I'm from the opposite side. Your POV seemed more like mine, so I assumed your "side" was the same as mine. IMO, long articles are a bad design, and say more about poor decisions being made wrt Harold Bishop than here. I much prefer sub-articles that are more digestible. I do not prefer deleting information (although there are times when it is the obviously appropriate thing to do). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - I have no problem with this article being longer, but not all content is the right content to add. I don't think the summaries add much to the article - I think they make it harder to read and harder to understand. That's not useful length. Phil Sandifer 17:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
How do you feel about my proposed compromise? (see above) Mark seems OK with it, do you? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If we can figure out a way to split it off that isn't a POV fork, I think it's great. Perhaps something like Summaries of Fashionable Nonsense and the thinkers it criticizes, much of a mouthful as that is. Phil Sandifer 14:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived

Having noticed no objections to my proposal to archive from almost 4 months ago, I have indeed archived the first 13 sections of discussion (plus lead section) to Talk:Fashionable Nonsense/Archive 1. - dcljr (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arkady Plotnitsky

There are a few problems with this part of the Criticism section.

1) What other critics dispute that 'they are merely critiquing the misuse of scientific and mathematical concepts, which, as scientists, they do understand'? If there are any, at least one other should be mentioned, otherwise I suggest replacing the phrase "is disputed by critics such as Arkady Plotnitsky" with "is disputed by Arkady Plotnitsky".

2) As they are critiquing the misuse of scientific and mathematical concepts (which is subject matter they are familiar with), the phrase "they lack familiarity with the subject matter and context of the works that they criticize" should be replaced by "they lack familiarity with the context of the works that they criticise".

3) The 'second' and 'fourth' of Plotnitsky's 'four central problems', that they ignore the historical context of mathematics and science, and that they don't understand the history or philosophy of mathematics and science, are completely irrelevant, as their criticism is directed at the *misuse* of scientific and mathematical *concepts*. They are not making claims about the philosophy of mathematics, or the history of science.

That's the tip of the iceberg. It would also be helpful if citations were provided for the mathematical errors that Sokal and Bricmont supposedly made, so that these can be investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.151.39 (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the book handy anymore, so the details of the errors (which, to be clear, are more accurately misunderstandings - Plotnitsky's claim is that they actually misunderstand the nature of complex numbers - not that they make an adding error or some sort of mathematical error).
1) Plotnitsky does not exist in a vacuum. People agree with him. This is significant in an academic context, because the people who agree with him are not mere supporters but active participants in the same discourse. Thus people who cite Plotnitsky sympathetically are, by their nature, of equal stature and significance to him. Hence the plural - the singular would falsely imply that he was the lone significant figure to hold his view. That's just a misrepresentation of how criticism in the humanities works.
2) The works that they criticize are not scientific works - they are works from a different field, and their major subject matter is not science. The current sentence is correct.
3) That's lovely, but those remain Plotnitsky's points, and it is not for us to change them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In what way do they misunderstand the nature of complex numbers? A reference would allow the claim to be verified by other experts in the field. It's actually quite a serious allegation, and one that deserves special attention.
1) If active participants agree with the 'latter point' that is referenced in the first sentence, then it should be a simple matter to name at least one of them, and cite a reference. Barring some evidence to the contrary the current pluralized sentence falsely implies that he is *not* the lone significant figure to hold his view. Many critics, including me, would dispute that criticism in the humanities operates differently than in other realms of human endeavour.
2) The works that they criticize uses scientific terminology incorrectly. If those same works were to have incorrectly used the term Sarcolemma instead of, say, Imaginary number, would a cell biologist be stepping outside of his field of expertise to correct them? I think not.
3) The issue is that Plotnitsky's points are non-sequiturs, for the reasons stated above, and as such they are no more encyclopedic than a criticism that the Elephant page does not contain enough information on television repair.Tevoosare (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I don't have the book handy, and so I can't provide a specific line reference. That said, I'm skeptical that it's as large a problem as you think it is - we're clearly referenced to the book. The claim is verifiable.
1) You are wrong. There's not much more to it. Arkady Plotnitsky is an oft-referenced major figure in the field. Given that, it is not a sensible requirement to go find a secondary source citing Plotnitsky. We can safely assume that tenured professors publishing books through major university presses have somebody in academia who agrees with them. To demand referencing for that kind of claim adds a stupid and useless layer of referencing with no useful gain.
2) Your point makes no sense. The criticism is that Sokal and Bricmont do not understand the arguments being made in the works they criticize. The fact that they understand the mathematics that is being used allegorically in the works does not mean that they understand the works, and it is not inaccurate to say that they do not understand the subject matter of the works they are critiquing. And, again, this is the critique that is made. Your disagreement with the critique is irrelevant.
3) Your argument still amounts to "I don't like Plotnitsky's argument." This is immaterial. Plotnitsky is a reliable and significant source on the subject. He explicitly criticizes Sokal and Bricmont's work. That you dislike his criticism is wholly irrelevant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1) I am not asking for a secondary source citing Plotnitsky, I am asking for another primary source to validate the assertion that there are many others who dispute that Sokal and Bricmont are *not* critiquing the misuse of scientific and mathematical concepts which they understand. Such a request is not "wrong". If the view is as widespread as you claim, it should be, as I said, an extremely simple matter.
2) You are right, that is the critique that was made.
3) My disagreement isn't that I don't like Plotnitsky's criticism, it that the article contains statements which are nonsensical, the way the article is currently written. If someone familiar with his criticism can expand that section so that there exists some explanation as to how "the historical context of the use of mathematics" relates in some way to the author's deconstruction of allegories that misuse terminology and concepts with specific meanings in another field, then I will be satisfied, and the article will make a lot more sense.
The fact remains that the first two paragraphs under the criticism section are decently written, and the third is a mess. It contains many other problems. However, from the dismissive tone of your responses so far, ("You are wrong. There's not much more to it" -- given as a response to a request for a reference) I suspect that any further effort on my part would be wasted. Tevoosare (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am, admittedly, familiar with the Plotnitsky, but the paragraph makes sense to me. As I've said, I do not still have the book, so I can't easily rewrite it. If you want to procure a copy and revise the paragraph, be my guest. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)