Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: A brilliant and rather amusing book. It falls a little short in going down to the final consequences of the author's analysis, but it still is a book I would recommend anyone.
Rating:
Summary: Should be read by everyone into social science.
Review: At first, I have to admit I enjoyed this book because of some personal reasons: as History graduate I was concerned and disappointed by the effects of posmodern theories in the social sciences. As Sokal and Bricmont say, natural sciences have nothing to fear from all that, but History! Sokal and Bricmont have commented the main and most important works of the posmodern doctrine, but maybe they haven't read the kind of stupidities and nonsenses arranged by the average posmodern followers, not to talk about the surrealistic discussions you can have with some of them. All that is on its way to destroy humanities and transform them into some kind of incomprehensible mystifications.Maybe worst are the consequences in pedagogy: I've read that students errors shoulnd't be corrected by teachers, they simply express the "internal dynamic" of the student. An that in an official regulation for secondary teachers! Everyone can imagine what kind of education will outcome from that. Seeems like someone want us to be as stupid as possible. But if that wasn't all, I am, as a progressist, even more worried about epistemological relativity. I couldn't and still cannot see what's progressive in the statement that there's no absolute truth and that every social or cultural group has his own relative truth. I simply haven't heard any better argument to justify ideas like negation of holocaust or white suprematism or any other absurds and evident falsehoods in the same or similar way. If neonazis defend and are convinced by those "theories", are they in the same level of truth than the victims of the holocaust? To be crude: is the holocaust a social discourse, only referable to their victims? To answer fast and clear: NO, there is a real and verifiable truth. Rationality is good, everything else is bad and dangerous, lets say it without any kind of irony. That's why I would recommend this book to any social concerned person, it helps in the needed task of "deconstructing" the posmodern nonsense. It demonstrates, as some guessed before, that the posmodern discourse is full (and based on) falsehoods, misinterpretations, non-sequiturs, empty pomposities and is, in clear words, a big intellectual dishonesty. I can only wonder what results would outcome from a complete syntactical (not grammatical) analysis from Derrida's, Irigaray's, not to mention Lacan's works. They seem full of completely meaningless but impressive assertions which no one could explain what they are trying to say, supposing they try to say something. The only thing I can blame on this book is not being destructive enough and not going as far as it could have gone. Maybe in a next book, for which I propose a new and better title to Sokal and Bricmont (maybe with the help of a good linguist): The Great Posmodern Swindle.
Rating: 
Summary: brilliant book.
Review: Brilliant boo
Rating: 
Summary: This book has the What but leaves out the Why.
Review: I read this book after it was mentioned in Dawkins' latest book "Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder." But like Dawkins' book, the pseudoscientific community is exposed as a fraud, but both books leave out the why. I have two perspectives on the WHY. First, postmodernism is an attempt to undermine science because it offers a means to attack primarily Darwinism and genetics, very solid scientific concepts feared by many neo-Marxists and/or liberals. Second, it becomes a new means of poetic elitism, precisely because it is totally meaningless and incomprehensible, it attracts the very intelligent and the duped followers. If they were honest, they would just admit that postmodernism is just another form of intellectual science fiction, but by banning together in protecting this dogma, like many religions, it can continue because it can't be challenged as long as it denies the rational. This book is exceptional reading for anyone familiar with math and physics. For the rest, good reading somewhat lacking.
Rating:
Summary: Something all philosophers should read
Review: This book sets itself a couple of goals: to critique the lack of intellectual honesty amoung "postmodern" authors and thinkers (in that they are not honest about their lack of knowledges in technical fields) and to reply to those who would hold that scince is a modern myth, no more "true" than any ancient one. It cannot be denied that Sokal and Bricmont are often simplistic and naive in their treatment of the diffucult subject of "postmodernism." But therin lies the strength of their argument. Suppose a relativist philosopher who claimed that science was no more true than ancienct shamanistic myths was arrested for murder, and faced execution if convicted. Would that philosopher consider a shaman's accusation, based as it was on divination or on the interpretation of holy texts, a sufficient grounds for conviction? Would they allow their life be ended by a means consistent with the beliefs they propound? Or would they demand a "proper" investigation, based on reason, evidence, and (gasp!) science? This is a refreshingly simple, and yes, naive, question, which must be answered by Sokal's critics. I am reminded by the philosopher in Hitchcock's "Rope" who was horrified to see his published "beliefs" put in to practice. For the quality of thought and straightforward writing style, I highly recommend the introduction, the epilouge, and the two "intermissions." These sections I give five stars. However, something is lacking in the sections which deal with individual thinkers. Another reviewer comments that Sokal and Bricmont often do not restate the theses of those they criticize. I would say that they do so about half of the time. This is only 50% as often as they should. My training in physics and mathematics allows me to spot errors in the thinking of the "postmoderists" easily; a non-technical reader will have more trouble. Though the authors attempt to explain complicated concepts simply, and succeed to a certain degree, a reader who is totally unfamliar with the subjects under discussion is likely to come away unconvinced. The extensive references could provide the interested with a solid background, but reading that volume of material is more the task of the academic than the average person. I give these sections only 3 stars. Overall, I think that this book is something that every philosopher should read, if only because sometimes the simple, naive questions are the hardest ones to answer. This review is based on the French-language edition of this book
Rating:
Summary: devastating critique of intellectual dishonesty
Review: Sokal presents a notion that in most circles would be self evident, but in the world of post modern philosophers is apparently novel - that if you are to cite scientific sources and ideas and then criticise scientific methods one should: a. have some minimal knowledge of these ideas, and b. have some minimal knowledge of scientific methods. That he could submit an article of his own which was replete with the errors he exposes, and have it published in a prestigious journal, drives home the point that these "philosophers" haven't a clue. A breath of fresh air that deflates intellectual terrorism and pomposity.
Rating:
Summary: should be required reading for all freshmen
Review: Sokal's and Bricmont's method is brilliant in its simplicity. How to debunk a bunch of phonies (Lacan, Deleuze, Guattari, Latour, etc) if they speak and write in confusing, obscure dialects of their own invention? If their absurds were pointed out, they would always say that this was not what they meant, that the others did not quite understand etc (or else they would say the opponent was a "conservative" and end the debate, as if one did not need to engage conservatives and people of all persuasions). To avoid this trap, Sokal and Bricmont selected the parts of their texts in which the criteria for discussion and evaluation are clearer, and obfuscation is more difficult: those dealing with, or making extensive reference to, mathematics and natural sciences. The results are devastating. One has to read only the chapter on Lacan to become convinced. Here is a man who spoke extensively of applying topological concepts to the study of the mind, but who never understood the more basic concepts of topology! Who never even understood, by the way, the meaning of the expression "imaginary number", which should be accessible to any high school student! They were surely counting with the fact that their audiences would not check the references. The implication is clear. Although Sokal and Bricmont do not venture an analysis of the post-modern pathos in politics and social affairs, one has to wonder whether similar intellectual bad faith is not equally present. Sokal was impressed by the undue influence of a small group of French academics (which one should not mistake with the great cultural, scientific and literary achivements of France) in the USA, and worried about the danger that, under their spell, many undergratuates would waste the best, more productive years of their student lives. I can assure you that the danger is no less acute in Brazil, where many, many students take years to realize they have been led by their teachers into the dead end of a new scholasticism, as sterile as the late medieval version. One would need a new Erasmus to demolish all the towers of the new fortress of Folly. But Sokal and Bricmont provide a good start. This book should be required reading for all freshmen who are tempted by Pomo syrens.
Rating:
Summary: at last
Review: At last a thorough and funny attack on postmodern nonsense. Looking at the reactions from the postmodern world, you can't help but feel that no matter how hollow and preposterous the articles or books of a writer are, there will always be people to defend him or her. Why? Do they hate reason? Do they think complicated things can only be described in a complicated way? Are they looking for a substitute for religion? Here's a subject sociologists should dive into.
Rating:
Summary: Physics vs. verbal acrobatics nicely defined
Review: First, one must know and understand some physics and mathematics to grasp what the authors are talking about. Science is not jargon and jargon is not science. An opportunistic professor of sociology may invoke, say, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to propose that all science and therefore all life is uncertain, but if challenged to discuss the principle itself he will quickly run out of intellectual gas. In other words, he won't have a clue, even though the set of words "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" seems to hold all kinds of adventuresome promise (Aha! Another publication! Can tenure be far away?). The hebetude and duplicity of the postmodernist sect is not apparent to the members ot the sect themselves because they have not been trained to comprehend even the basic laws they invoke (nor perhaps do they wish to be so trained); to the rest of us, the notion of supporting radical social/literary/philosphical theory using physics or mathematical axioms remains patently (and justifiably) absurd. This seems to me to be the main point of Sokal and Bricmont's effort. One can ask is science so abused, and what is "science abuse" anyway? Well, the authors take their physics seriously and they think it is. Hiding behind academic credentials is of course the last resort of scoundrels, and no careful thinker would entertain seriously (as Irigaray is quoted on page 109 of this book) the notion that Einstein's mass-energy equation is somehow "sexed". But that's not how things work in the murky, self-assured world of "soft" Ph.D.s, faculty cliques, weird academic journals, deconstruction, postmodernism or for that matter astrology or psychic readings over the telephone. One may wish to believe that Newton's Law of Universal Gravition is a sexist construct design to keep women subservient, but it would be unwise to walk off a cliff to prove the point. Gravity works whether you want it to or not. Unless you have tenure. Is this book so complicated it makes your hair hurt? Are the authors pulling our collective leg? Yes. Yes.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Exposes in Many Years
Review: Sokal has performed a valuable service to the cause of rational thought. While far from exhaustive in discussing each of his targets, he provides enough information to allow readers to judge for themselves. He does exactly what he promises, not to analyze the philosophical ideas but rather to assess the competence of assorted thinkers to draw upon scientific thought in their work. The querulous disciples of the thinkers he targets are too cowardly and dishonest to seriously engage with the issues raised. Look at some of the other reader comments to get an idea of how freely people merely change the subject rather than confront the grotesque failings of a variety of "postmodern" pseudo-intellectuals to understand the terms and ideas they casually trash. Every thinking person should read this book!!!
| 
