User talk:VermillionBird/Fashionable Nonsense is not a scholarly work

Pre-article
Created the article (obviously.) It's still very much a work in progress. For some reason this specific thread of anti-intellectualism masquerading as anti-anti-intellectualism really bothers me, so I'm going to try to take some steps to help stop the spread of misinformation.

I'm going to read the book this weekend and post a detailed and cogent summary of both the book and the hoax article so other people won't have to waste their time. I'll also post reasons why Sokal and Bricmont's assertions aren't to be taken seriously.

At this point I'll consider the article, if not completed, ready enough to show to the few people that I've noticed trying to reign in the pro-FN users (if anybody wants to come up with a better collective noun, please do so.) That being said, I don't expect anyone to actually see this until I do so. So all this is here just in case someone stumbles across it before then.

The idea is not so much to send misinformed users to this page for a categoral critique of the statements (although it might be useful for that; either that or become a target of vandalism) but to provide resources for people working to correct the presentation of the affected information on Wikipedia.

I've seen what seem to be intelligent and informed users have a hard time in discussions against pro-FNs because it seemed that they were only vaugely (or not at all) familiar with the book, etc. and were dealing with a user who had a sack full of half-truths and misinformation at the ready.

VermillionBird 23:37, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Fixed a little bit to be what I intended to start with. It still needs a lot of work; most obviously, the main sections (2 and 3.)

Also, the title needs a better (i.e. shorter) name before it can be moved to the Wikipedia:Whatever_The_Name_Is space.

And, oh yeah, I saw a meta-article yesterday that described the perfect wiki-article as somethink like: describes a philosopher; presenting his viewpoint without criticism, which should be reserved for another article. I've gone through my history and I can't find it but I know I'm not imagining it. It's certainly not common practice but perhaps it should be cited for precedent... e.g. Derrida's criticisms of of Lacan/Saussure/etc. belongs on Derrida's article and not Lacan's/Saussure's/etc. Seems to make sense to me. Any thoughts?

VermillionBird 03:16, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Change of plans.

First, I forgot the library closes early on Friday nights. So I only now have the book (Saturday afternoon.)

Second, I've been trying to give the book as much benefit of doubt as I could to be able to construct an objective criticism of it that holds up as much as possible to potential objections.

Which was all fine and dandy until I got the book.

It is very hard not to dismiss it out of hand in light of Wikipedia-available summary. Same, given the reading of the book-back reviews or the dust-cover summary. Same, given the reading of the "Preface to the English Edition" (the book was first published in France as Impostures Intellectuelles.)

I began the preface, sitting in a favorite local pub, where I can get a pint of Boddington's (a rarity in the Midwest U.S.,) and where I stop on my way back from the library whenever I can spare the time.

I gave up when I had too many specific, determinable, factual criticisms to remember. Same for the Introduction. I flipped to the chapter on Deleuze and Guattari (of all the excerpted, the ones in which I am most versed.) Same.

I could, at least, I thought, make the thorough rereading of the hoax essay that the authors have thoughtfully included in the book, that I intended to do for the sake of this page. Same.

The lovely librarians grabbed for me, in addition to FN, Higher Superstition by Gross and Levitt (if you're not familiar, I'm sure you can find it re: Sokal and Bricmont.)

Okay, I thought, if I can't read FN without being at the computer to make notes, at least I can read this related book.

No.

Protesting obfuscation are we?

Chapter One: The Academic Left and Science:

(with no definition, in the chapter, of what that means, by the way)


 * "Sub specie aeternitatis, it hardly pays to subdivide muddleheadedness into different categories arising from different social and historical circumstances. An attempted taxonomy implies ingratitude toward the philosphers and poets who have demonstrated, in their varied and powerful ways, the ineluctability of folly." (lack of emphasis, authors own)

So.

So my attempt to take FN as seriously as possible is, at this point, failing. I still plan to offer a thorough summary and initial counter-arguements, but I no longer feel confident that I can create a simple, thorough, and objective version of such. So I am going to 'publicize' this page much sooner than I'd intended. If I've posted a link on your user page, please accept this as explanation why.

That said, I'm going to be functionally computerless until, at least, tomorrow night, and may not have time to use one for a few 'nother days. While I will be reading and making notes, these pages will not change, by my hand. Just so's you're aware.

VermillionBird 00:05, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Comments
Certainly, I agree that Fashionable Nonsense is a piece of drek. However, I cannot support any activity designed to canonnify that or any other viewpoint. The criticisms of the book, which are numerous, should be listed in the appropriate articles. But it is not NPOV to eliminate the viewpoint, however idiotic I find it. Snowspinner 01:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your advice is well taken by this Wikipedia-contributing-newbie. I will officially consider this project on hold.  However, I'm confused about the POV situation.  How do we determine (not a rhetorical question) what is a legitimate point of view and what isn't?  Surely, if I were to take material from a tabloid (e.g. "Bat-boy found in Peru") and create articles purporting those that information to be factual, that would just be seen as vandalism, wouldn't it?  The intent is different, of course, but I don't see a reason to believe that Sokal and Bricmont have any more credibility than that in the field that they try to criticize.  There are published works that claim quantum physics can prove religion (I specifically remember one that claimed to prove the diety-structure of Hinduism; I'd been looking for the title to use as reference for this topic but not had any luck so far.) and they are not mentioned outside their own context except as entertaining trivia.  This is not meant to be an arguement; it's meant to be a question.  I suppose the question is: I was under the impression that that Sokal and Bricmont's criticisms were not credible was a demonstrable fact.  Why do you consider it a POV? VermillionBird 22:21, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

I agree that Fashonable Nonsense is currently substantially overrepresented in Wikipedia's coverage of several topics that Sokal and Bricmont touch on, and I support reducing the disproportionate amount of space devoted to it in several of the articles mentioned here. Doubtless this disproportionate coverage emerges partly from many prolific Wikipedians' sympathy for Sokal and Bricmont's POV, and greatly from their knowledge of it exceeding their broader knowledge of its subjects. But the real remedy is better substantial coverage of those topics; much of contemporary continental philosophy is still inaccurate and/or stub content on the English Wikipedia. In general, to call for more advocacy of an underrepresented POV is in my opinion less effective than simply to proceed as neutrally as possible in expanding and enriching articles on topics of interest. Also, there are some problems with this page, such as its assertion that most literary journals do not practice peer review (which is simply false, though their practice may differ from the hard sciences' version). -- Rbellin|Talk 06:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, right that my time would be better spent improving the articles. Thank you for the advice. VermillionBird 22:21, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * I think your on-hold article is potentially quite valuable, even if it isn't wikipedia material. You could develop it further even without moving it from the user domain and people could still use it as a reference in discussions with over-zealous science hawks.

--ragesoss 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting work. Perhaps the most productive way to engage with Sokal and Bricmont is to treat the book as a cultural commodity within a particular cultural industry that services reactionary high-modernists. 'Cultural industry' ala Adorno.

Firstly, this will help you frame the question of who the book was written for and what was the purpose of the book. It was not written for actual intellectuals who understand and work with the thinkers targeted in the book. This is clearly represented by the fact that Sokal and Bricmont do not spend any time constructing the context in which the extracts quoted from these thinkers appear. If one was to engage with the actual thinkers, then an exposition of the (intellectual) context would be required. Instead we have an exposition of a caricatured conception of 'postmodernism'. Those accused of being 'postmodernists' would more than likely dismiss such an accusation out of hand, for the label 'postmodernists' is used to construct a certain population and set of thoughts as being unworthy of due attention. The paradox here is that to understand whether or not somehting is worth due attention demands a minimal amount of attention. This minimal amount of attention is clearly not provided in the book. The book is the equivalent of roadside tourism, Sokal and Bricmont never get out of their car.

Second and relatedly,'postmodernism' is not a 'sign' of a particular intellectual disposition by strange French thinkers (in the sense Deleuze uses the term 'sign' in his _Proust_ book), but a 'sign' that refers to and circulates within a particular cultural industry that services the popularist reactionary desires of, at the minimum, grumpy and befuddled professors. In other words, treat the book as a 'machine' and ask (the schizoanalytic question) what does it do? It enables a given population, evident on Wikipedia and elsewhere, to consolidate a collective position based on second (or third?) hand knowledge of intellectual thought that presupposes an engagement with that thought. This consolidation of a given population around a set of affects and beliefs (which following Simondon would be called an 'individuation') is precisely the book's 'machinic' function. It does not function as 'intellectual engagement' and I have never seen it referenced in that way. Glen fuller 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that any criticism of 'postmodernism' must be the work of "reactionary high-modernists"? What makes you think that just because someone writes inarticulately ('is difficult') that they are an intellectual, a thinker? Do you think that talking/writing in an hermetic style is somehow serving the rights and needs of the proletariat? I suggest you read this: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2006/1785351.htm#transcript Refusing to engage in argument ("piece of drek"), while making appeals to being "intellectual", or "anti-intellectual" is simply dishonest, vapid, condesending, pompous and elitist. There is no "paradox" here. Either you accept the notion of there being a real world and that we may try to understand it, argue about it, test our theories about it, or you say that there is no verifiable truth, that everything is relative, in which case you lie down with people like David Irving (holocaust denial), George Bush (weapons of mass destruction), and Osama bin Laden (America is Satan), the religious right (intelligent design) and any other lunatic wanting to push their own fantasy agenda in the face of contrary evidence. Of course, this is just my opinion! You are welcome to edit me out! MarkAnthonyBoyle 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)