Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont Summary

Fashionable Nonsense critiques postmodern intellectuals for misusing scientific and mathematical concepts to legitimize vague or nonsensical arguments. Physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont expose how figures like Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva employ jargon from physics (e.g., relativity, quantum theory) without rigor, often masking flawed logic. The book also challenges epistemic relativism—the idea that science is merely a "social construct"—defending empirical evidence and rational inquiry.

This book suits critics of postmodernism, STEM professionals interested in public discourse, and readers analyzing academic rigor. It’s ideal for those exploring the "science wars" of the 1990s or seeking to identify misapplied scientific terminology in philosophy/literary theory. Skeptics of relativistic epistemology will find Sokal and Bricmont’s defense of objectivity compelling.

Yes, for its incisive critique of academic pretension and its defense of scientific rationality. The authors combine humor (notably referencing Sokal’s 1996 Social Text hoax) with direct textual analysis of postmodern writings. While polarizing in humanities circles, it remains a foundational text for debates about intellectual accountability and interdisciplinary dialogue.

In 1996, Sokal submitted a deliberately absurd article filled with scientific gibberish to Social Text, a postmodern journal, which published it uncritically. The hoax exposed lax academic standards in certain humanities fields. The book includes this article as an appendix, using it to underscore its broader critique of intellectual dishonesty.

The book targets Jacques Lacan (misusing topology in psychoanalysis), Julia Kristeva (misapplying set theory), and Bruno Latour (confusing relativity with moral relativism). It also critiques Luce Irigaray’s gendered interpretations of fluid mechanics and Gilles Deleuze’s misrepresentations of calculus.

Epistemic relativism claims scientific truths are culturally constructed narratives, not objective discoveries. Sokal and Bricmont argue this view undermines science’s ability to explain reality, noting that while societal factors influence research, empirical evidence remains foundational. They link extreme relativism to climate denial and anti-vaccine movements.

The authors distinguish between subjective biases in research (e.g., funding priorities) and objective scientific truths (e.g., gravitational laws). They argue that while science is a human endeavor, its methods—peer review, experimentation, and revision—progressively approximate reality, making it distinct from purely ideological systems.

Detractors accuse Sokal and Bricmont of oversimplifying postmodern texts and ignoring metaphorical uses of scientific terms. Some argue they dismiss valid critiques of scientific institutions’ power dynamics. However, supporters praise the book for challenging opaque writing and intellectual laziness.

The book is a key artifact of the 1990s "science wars," where scientists and postmodernists clashed over knowledge’s social role. It counters claims that science is just another cultural narrative, emphasizing its unique explanatory power and practical successes (e.g., medical advances, technology).

No—the authors stress they critique only specific abuses, not philosophy or humanities broadly. They clarify that their goal is to curb "charlatanism," not stifle interdisciplinary work, provided it engages scientific concepts accurately.

Sokal and Bricmont dissect sentences from prominent texts, showing how ambiguous phrasing, non sequiturs, and superficial references to physics/math create an illusion of depth. For example, they highlight Lacan’s nonsensical equation linking the erectile organ to the square root of -1.

The book remains pertinent amid debates over misinformation and "post-truth" rhetoric. Its warnings about weaponizing jargon resonate in discussions about AI ethics, scientific communication, and academic accountability. It also offers tools to critically assess interdisciplinary claims.