Advertisement

Science Wars?

Historical, Social, and Epistemological Aspects of the “Sokal-Debate”
  • Jochen Hoock
Chapter
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)

Abstract

The Sokal/Bricmont debate should not be considered solely as a textbook example for social aspects of the discourse between science and the humanities, but its epistemological and theoretical aspects should be taken equally serious. Along the lines of its chronological development the debate is shown to consist of a series of arguments and counter-arguments reflecting the long-running controversy about the roles and interrelations of content and context, of discovery context and justifcation context in science and the history and philosophy of science.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, Hans Christian (1975), “Des Kaisers neue Kleider.” In: Märchen vol. 1. Frankfurt/Main: Insel, pp. 139–145.Google Scholar
  2. Besset, Francois (2001), “La réflexion philosophique a-t-elle sa place dans la connaissance scientifique?” In: KREMER-MARIETTI (ed.; 2001), pp. 81 ff.Google Scholar
  3. Cassirer, Ernst (1994) Philosophie der symbolischen Formen Dritter Teil: Phänomenologie der Erkenntnis. Darmstadt: WBG.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, Gary (1996) “The Sokal Affair.” In: Annals of Academia Internet 6 June.Google Scholar
  5. Cipolla, Carlo M. (1988), “Tra due culture…,” Bologna: Il Mulino. dahan dalmedico, amy and dominique Pestre (1998), “Comment parler des sciences aujourd’hui?” In: JURDANT (ed.; 1998). pp. 77–105.Google Scholar
  6. Delacroix, Christian, FRANÇOIS Dosse, and Patrick Garcia (1999), Les courants historiques en France, 19–20e siècle. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  7. Digeon, Claude (1959) La crise allemande de la pensée française (1870–1914). Paris: Presse Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  8. Dosse, FranÇOis (1995) L’empire du sens: L’humanisation des sciences humaines. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  9. Dubois, Michel (2001), “Le Relativisme cognitif comme `Moulin à vent’? Constructivisme et relativisme en sociologie des sciences.” In: KREMERMARIETTI (ed.; 2001 ), pp. 109–135.Google Scholar
  10. Duhem, Pierre (21914), La théorie physique: son objet, sa structure. Paris: Rivière.Google Scholar
  11. Feldman, Jacqueline (2001), “Les savoirs aujourd’hui: pour un travail d’explicitation.” In: Kremer-Marietti (ed.; 2001 ), pp. 39–64.Google Scholar
  12. Ginzburg, Carlo (2001), Die Wahrheit der Geschichte: Rhetorik und Beweis. Translation by W. Kaiser. Berlin: Wagenbach.Google Scholar
  13. Grenier, Jean-Yves and Bernard Lepetit (1989), “L’experience historique: A propos de C.-E. Labrousse,” Annales ESC, no. 6, pp. 1337–1360.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, Michael (2001), “Contexts of justification”, The Mathematical Intelligencervol. 23, no.1, p. 18–22.Google Scholar
  15. Jeanneret, Yves (1998) L’affaire Sokal ou la querelle des impostures. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  16. Jurdant, Baudouin (ed.; 1998) Impostures scientifiques: les malentendus de l‘affaire Sokal. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  17. Koselleck, Reinhart (2000), Zeitschichten: Studien dur Historik. Mit einem Beitrag von Hans-Georg Gadamer. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  18. Kremer-Marietti, ANGÈLE (ed.; 2001 ), Ethique et épistémologie: Autour du Livre Impostures intellectuelles’ de Sokal et Bricmont. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  19. Kristeva, Julia (1997), “Une désinformation,” Le Nouvel Observateur, September 25, pp. 122.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, Bruno (1997), “Y a-t-il une science après la guerre froide?” Le Monde, January 18, p. 17.Google Scholar
  21. Lepenies, Wolf (1985), Die drei Kulturen: Sociologie vischen Literatur und Wissenschaft. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  22. Lepenies, Wolf (1990), Les trois cultures: Entre science et littérature — l’avènement de la sociologie. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.Google Scholar
  23. Lepetit, Bernard (ed.; 1995 ), Les formes de l’expérience: Une autre histoire sociale. Paris: Alb in Michel.Google Scholar
  24. Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph (1957), Aphorismen. Edited by Joseph Schirmer. Freiburg: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  25. Low, Martina (2001), Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  26. Mandelbrot, Benoit B. (1983), The Fractal Geometry of Nature. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  27. Morin, Herve (2001), “La sociologie au miroir de la thèse d’Elizabeth Teissier,” Le Monde, May 15, p. 24.Google Scholar
  28. Noiriel, Gerard (1997), Sur la `crise’ l’histoire. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
  29. Salanskis, Jean-Michel (1997), “Comment je me suis disputé…,” Revue de l’Association Henri Poincaré, no.7, December.Google Scholar
  30. Salanskis, Jean-Michel (1998), “Pour une épistémologie de la lecture.” In: JURDANT, BAUDOUIN (ed.; 1998), pp. 157–194.Google Scholar
  31. Segerstrale, Ullica (2000), “The shame that shook the Academy,” Science, vol. 290, p. 1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sokal, Alan D. (1996), “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Trans-formative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” Social Text, vol. 46 /47, pp. 217–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. sokal, alan d. And jean bricmont (21997), Impostures intellectuelles. Paris: Odile Jacob [English translation: `Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers’ Abuse of Science’. London: Profile Books, 1998. Published in the US and Canada under the title ‘Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science’. New York: Picador, 1998. Published in German under the title ‘Eleganter Unsinn: Wie die Denker der Postmoderne die Wissenschaft missbrauchen’. München: C. H. Beck, 1999 ].Google Scholar
  34. Terr, Dominique (2001), “Les sciences humaines sont elles des sciences morales.” In: KREMER-MARIETTI (ed.; 2001 ), pp. 173–183.Google Scholar
  35. Touraine, Alain (2001), “De quoi Elizabeth Teissier est-elle coupable?” Le Monde, May 22.Google Scholar
  36. Wehler, Hans-Ulrich (2000), Umbruch und Kontinuität: Essays hum 20. Jahrhundert. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Hoock

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations