Reddit reviews Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science

The guy wrote a whole book on the subject actually, it's quite an entertaining read:

http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078

Apparently E=mc^2 is a "privileged" and "sexist" equation to these people. It's great having a book that makes fun of them so thoroughly, it's very quotable!

Sokal authored and co-authored a couple of books on the matter. Check out Intellectual Impostures if you are interested in it deeper than a Wikipedia article. The US edition is called Fashionable Nonsense.

You should read Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont's "Fashionable Nonsense". Alan Sokal published a parody of post-modernist lit-crit in fairly respectable journal. There was nontrivial backlash when he went on to write about how he had published total nonsense, etc. etc.

you are on the right track. Most of what they teach in Communications, Sociology, 'Critical theory', 'oppression theory', 'deconstructionism' is PoMo non-sense. I suggest you read this :
Fashionable Nonsense

http://smile.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078/ref=smi_www_rcolv2_go_smi?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

If you come across people who are fans of : Simone deBouvoir, Foucault, Dworkin, Solanas etc.

You can look at these for an examination of postmodernist authors on a case by case basis:

Higher Superstition

Fashionable Nonsense

The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy

I think the author of this article is discussed in this book. It's quite an entertaining analysis of misleading or incompetent use of science in social science and philosophy.

For anyone who hasn't read it, Sokal wrote a book with Jean Bricmont that goes in depth on this stuff, and it is glorious.

I agree with everything you've just said.

You might be interested in Fashionable Nonsense.

Edit. Apart from one thing.

> Not just scientists...

I made no comment on the groups of people who were not scientists. When talking about scientists using exact language you may have felt I was commenting on groups that where not scientists but I was not. ;)

Here is a Postmodernism paper generator.

There is a book too if you are really interested... and another... and another

> It's amazing how the 'critical theory' has managed to corrupt academia and science from a discipline of objective research to a form of political activism.

Fashionable Nonsense is a must read.

I haven't seen any evidence that postmodernism is anything other than nonsense, and thinkers I respect, like Russell, thought badly of it. So let me ask you: what is postmodernism? What interesting ideas does it introduce? Perhaps you can clarify.

By the way, have you heard of the Sokal affair?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Sokal wrote a book about postmodernism, called "fashionable nonsense":
http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078

https://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078

throwing this out there as well—has good analysis of lacan

Link, for the six people who might see this

>but there's another side to the story

That's correct, and it's published here, by Lingua Franca, along with Sokal's rebuttal, where he says:

>I confess to amusement that one Social Text editor still doesn't believe my piece was a parody. Oh, well.

>As for Social Text's editorial process, readers can judge for themselves the plausibility of the editors' post facto explanations, which if true may be more damning than the incident itself. Some of their chronology is at variance with my own documentary record, but let me not beat a dead horse.

BTW, Sokal and Jean Bricmont also wrote a book called Fashionable Nonsense, and it delves into many of these issues. They say, for example:

>"For us, as for most people, a 'fact' is a situation in the external world that exists irrespective of the knowledge that we have (or don't have) of it—in particular, irrespective of any consensus or interpretation" {Bricmont and Sokal@102}.

and they offer this advice for people reading literary theory, doing science, or trying to understand "the relationship between the natural and human sciences," {Bricmont and Sokal@185}:

>1. It's a good idea to know what one is talking about.

>2. Not all that is obscure is necessarily profound.

>3. Science is not a 'text.'

>4. Don't ape the natural sciences.

>5. Be wary of arguments from authority.

>6. Specific skepticism should not be confused with radical skepticism.

>7. Ambiguity as subterfuge {Bricmont and Sokal@185–189}.

They elaborate on what each point means in the book.

From there, the authors go on to speculate how the social sciences and the humanities came to take parts of science and scientific discourse out of context and, implicitly, how one might correct these kinds of issues.

EDIT: Yes, I am a grad student in English lit, and I've written about why you shouldn't be in What you should know BEFORE you start grad school in English Literature: The economic, financial, and opportunity costs and in various other places.

It's not that entire universities are plagued by postmodern thinking. Postmodernism as it relates to art and subjective things has its place, and I think it's interesting, even sometimes valuable. But it is rare that postmodernism is treated as belonging only to the area of subjective topics, as it often is incorporated in other areas in which it cannot contribute something substantial.

Humanities departments in universities are the primary source of postmodern scholarship, in departments like English, Sociology, Communications, History, Gender Studies, Cultural Studies, Cultural and Social Anthropology. It is not unusual for members of these departments to extend postmodernism to areas it doesn't belong, like science. In fact, there are quite a few books written by scientists and academics addressing this very problem.

The links in my previous post also do a fine job of outlining the problem.

He provides some arguments in the debate linked above (because Foucault actually deigns to make a few coherent substantive statements that can be subject to scrutiny and cross-examination).

However, as he as written of and noted in the past, a tremendous problem with post-structuralism/'critical' theory etc is it's deliberate obscurantism. It's impossible to critique or refute much of this meaningless drivel because it's not even wrong. There's almost nothing there to critique much of the time. This is demonstrated at length in Alan Sokal's book mention by Chomsky in one of the videos Fashionable Nonsense. I highly recommend it as do various others.

It's funny to me that you think calling something a cabal and desperately mocking your opponets argument trying to make the worst form of it so that you can feel emotionally gratified in your bias is more important to you than making the best form of the argument to see if you're right. That postmodernism is becoming increasingly popular at universities and that by its own claims is anti modernism. I mean would it not be easy enough to justify that with the sokal affair? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

https://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078

Or if you are really desperate you could ignore evidence that compelling about postmodernists and still be left with how campus policy has been changed after much lobbying by feminist groups.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-taylor-campus-sexual-assault-20170303-story.html

What about polling done by Bucknell Institute for Public Policy that shows democrats are the lowest for believing in the right to cross examine their accusiors? Now I too might ask is that the result of feminist teaching in academia maybe not but is it not strange that so many public womens and genders studies professors support such changes or are against such basic rights?

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/27/poll-americans-still-believe-innocent-proven-guilty-even-college-students/

Is that argument actually so ridiclious? Or are you trying to save your bias by only being willing to pretend its as if its some secret cabal?

> Got any examples there, bud?

There's an entire book on the subject called Fashionable Nonsense filled with examples of humanities scholars bastardizing science to create an anti-colonial narrative. In the cited works by popular academics you'll learn that math and physics aren't simply ways of describing the world around us and making predictions, but secret vehicles for racism, sexism, and colonial oppression. If decrying the disciplines that enabled human spaceflight and doubled the average lifespan is not anti-intellectual, I don't know what is.

> You realize the scientific method has limits right? Like by definition. Science is a process of constant revision.

So what's your point? Observing facts, coming up with a hypothesis, falsifying it, and producing a theory to explain the relationships between the facts you're documented and tested, then correcting it when new facts are discovered is a pretty damn good way of learning about the world and the way all humans have done it since we gained sapience.

When humanities scholars say that "indigenous cultures had the scientific method forced upon them by colonists," they're not decrying colonialism as much as they're insulting indigenous cultures by refusing to acknowledge that they too understood how science works and conducted some form of scientific studies.

>Are there any good academic critiques of it?

Fashionable Nonsense is probably the most widely circulated criticism of this general school of thought.

> In some of the intervening time, it seems to have become dominant (at least in internet dialogue).

I'm not sure this is the case, certainly not in America.

Dear Despondent,

I am not the Highly Qualified Literary Academic you really need, but I've spent enough time in academia to have an opinion anyway.

The vast majority of literary study work that I have come upon in the 21st century consists of incredibly arcane deconstructions of minutiae that have a very small chance of ever helping someone trying to understand literature.

I don't know anything about your professors, but my guess is that they are (a) desperately trying to justify their own existence in the academy by writing material of the type described above — and therefore unable/unwilling to carefully review your work to see if it fits the mold; and/or (b) too unclear on what exactly you should be expected to compose in order to grant you a seal of approval for your own work.

This is a common trend in cultural studies, sociology, and some schools of philosophy as well. I wish I had some advice on how to navigate it all, but I can only tell you, as someone who enjoys reading the 10% of well-written, worthwhile literary analysis that makes it into print: Please make sure your work actually contributes meaningfully to the world, instead of merely pumping it full of more fashionable nonsense to acquire tenure and/or publication.

Good luck!

Kind regards,

HS English Teacher Who Wishes He Could Do More Analytical Scholarly Work Instead of Grading Papers All the Time