Talk:Fashionable Nonsense

Lead

Equilibrium103, you appear to be intent on removing the following content from the lead: "Critics of Sokal and Bricmont charge that they lack understanding of the writing they were criticizing. Responses from the scientific community were more supportive." You have removed it five times so far now (here, here, here, here, and here. Each time that you have removed it, I have restored it, as none of the reasons you have given for the removal have been satisfactory. You might want to review basic policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, and useful advice on resolving disputes such as WP:BRD. Repeatedly removing that content despite the lack of agreement comes across as extremely rude and arrogant, and it is certainly not the way things are supposed to work here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem intent on keeping it despite clear reasons that the content is unsatisfactory: WP: LEADCITE and WP: WEASEL. The "lack of agreement" consists solely of your own indignation, making your accusation of arrogance quite odd.

Either way, the content is redundant with both the lead and the criticism section, and poorly cited and worded besides. Please refrain from violating WP: LEADCITE and WP: WEASEL and focus on improving the article. Equilibrium103 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You have given no "clear reasons" why the content is "unsatisfactory." You cited WP:LEADCITE and WP:WEASEL, and gave absolutely no explanation of how they show that the content is in any way "unsatisfactory." WP:LEADCITE reads in full,

"The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

How any of that is a reason for removing mention of criticism of Sokal and Bricmont, specifically the charge that they lack understanding of the texts they criticize, you have never explained. As I said in my most recent revert, spewing alphabet soup is not an argument. Perhaps you do not understand this, but if you try to change an article and someone reverts your change, the appropriate thing to do is to either seek dispute resolution (which can take several different forms) or simply find something else to do. Making the same change over and over again, in the hopes that this time it will be accepted, is never an appropriate or acceptable way to respond to being reverted. Changing an article requires consensus; if there is no such consensus, the article reverts to the previous version.

Your comment that the content is redundant with the criticism section shows a failure on your part to understand the purpose of the lead, despite repeated explanations of this simple issue over the course of months. The lead is an overview and as such a summary of the article's topic, so of course it repeats things that are elsewhere in the article, such as in the criticism section - that is what a summary does. The fact that Sokal and Bricmont's critics charge that they lack understanding of the works they criticize is important, and there is no valid reason whatever for removing it from the lead. WP:LEAD specifically states that the lead is meant to mention prominent controversies, and the charge that Sokal and Bricmont do not understand the texts they criticize is one of them. If you want to suggest a better wording of the content, then by all means go ahead. The fact that something could be better worded is not a justification for simply removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

As I've stated, sir, the lead is not merely redundant with the article, but largely with the lead itself. As your own quotation stated, the lead is not exempt from weasel wording or any other uncited or poorly cited claim. As you yourself stated, inserting content that runs afoul of guidelines over and over again is not appropriate, and you would do well to take your own advice and either seek intervention, improve the reference, or find something else to do. Equilibrium103 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You have repeatedly stated things that make it clear that you do not understand WP:LEAD, and that latest comment of yours is one more tedious example. To quote WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." You would not be complaining about the lead being "redundant with the article" if you had understood that simple explanation of the purpose of a lead (to say that the lead is redundant with "the lead itself" is incoherent, incidentally). That "Critics of Sokal and Bricmont charged that they lacked understanding of the writing they were criticizing" is a prominent controversy associated with Fashionable Nonsense, so mentioning it is perfectly appropriate. As for WP:LEADCITE, it makes clear that, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." You have made no case that additional citations are required in the lead. A guideline you may wish to read, Equilibrium103, is that on disruptive editing, especially the section WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I agree that the lead (among many other parts of the article) has its problems and needs to be improved in many ways, but unfortunately your edits are not helping. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. I am not going to offer a straightforward third opinion, but will suggest that a Request for Comments be used on whether the two sentence should be in the lead. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Robert McClenon. Unfortunately, your response is not helpful. As I have said, the article is in most respects poor and the lead doubtless needs improving, just as the rest of the article does. However, focusing in a single-minded way on the two sentences in the lead that are in dispute does nothing to resolve matters and is in fact counter-productive, since it distracts attention away from larger issues. Those interested in the article need to consider the article as a whole and what could be done to improve it. A lengthy, complicated request for comment about two sentences in the lead is not the appropriate response here. Please reconsider your response. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, in case this needs spelling out, I would be perfectly content to see those two sentences removed if someone could propose an alternative that properly summarizes the criticism the book received. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The criticism section is several times larger than the support section. However, the criticism is confined to turgid postmodernist obscurantism, and should be removed in its entirely. No credentialed scientist or mathematician seems to have issue with the book. False news and alternative facts may be currently in political ascendancy, but that is not a reason to allow academic gaslighting by postmodernists to overrun articles like this one. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

My own opinion then is that if one editor thinks that a sentence should be in the lede and another thinks that it should not, the way to minimize conflict is to leave it out of the lede but include it in the article body. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Epipelagic, per WP:NPOV, the lead has to reflect both positive and negative views of the book, to the extent that these have been published in "reliable sources". It does not matter for Wikipedia's purposes whether the criticism directed against the book is "turgid postmodernist obscurantism" or not. See, eg, the advice at WP:NOTTRUTH. I am sure that there has been positive commentary on Fashionable Nonsense that is not currently mentioned in the article, and it would benefit the article to add appropriate content based on it. Robert McClenon, your suggestion that any sentence in the lead that is in dispute between two editors should be removed to eliminate conflict may be sincerely motivated by a desire to minimize inter-editor conflict, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with improving Wikipedia. Taking your suggestion to its logical conclusion, one might as well eliminate Wikipedia entirely, as then there would be nothing for anyone to argue over anymore. Please reconsider your position and make a relevant suggestion for improving the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no point offering you opinions if you are going to so thoughtlessly bat them back. This article is, as the lead says, about "misuses of scientific and mathematical concepts in postmodern writing". Some postmodernists masquerade as credible voices in science, when in practice they are just furthering psuedoscience by muddying issues with obscurantist language. Wikipedia has an extensive history of discriminating psuedoscience from genuine science, and I don't see anything particularly different here. And don't tell me what guidelines I should read. Read them yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a basic part of Wikipedia policy. I do not think it thoughtless to mention it. It requires that Wikipedia reflect opinions about a topic that have appeared in reliable sources, regardless of the nature of those opinions, and in particular whether they reflect favorably or negatively on the topic in question. The article is not about "misuses of scientific and mathematical concepts in postmodern writing", it is about a book that discusses that among other subjects. Criticism of it has appeared in reliable sources, and the article has to reflect that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't want anyone else's opinion. Don't waste other people's time. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not wasting anyone's time. You are choosing to edit Wikipedia, read this talk page, and respond to me. That is no one's choice but your own. I am not forcing you to do it. I am interested in hearing any opinions that are sensible, respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are oriented toward improving the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That considered response took you just two minutes. Yuk --Epipelagic (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:FreeKnowledgeCreator - If you have already decided what answers you do and don't want, don't ask for a third opinion. Oh. Maybe you didn't. Maybe the other editor did. I won't point out the absurdity of taking your suggestion to its non-logical conclusion, which wasn't the logical conclusion of my suggestion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I have not decided which answers I do and do not want. I have only decided that the particular answer you gave - which was first to hold a request for comment, and then to remove the sentences from the lead just to avoid conflict - was not helpful. You are free, of course, to offer useless third opinions, but other editors are just as free to tell you that they are useless. I am very willing to listen to anyone who does have a relevant suggestion for improving the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Barriers to critical thinking

Got convinced. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem:, could you please stop making this childish and inappropriate edit? You do not appear to understand the category you have insisted on trying to add to the article. "Category:Barriers to critical thinking" serves a specific purpose: it is for articles about topics that are barriers to critical thinking. It is not intended for books. The book Fashionable Nonsense is not a barrier to critical thinking. If your rationale for adding the category is going to be that the book somehow is a barrier to critical thinking, then your edit is simply a form of POV-pushing that is really no better than vandalism. If your rationale is that the "fashionable nonsense" discussed in the book Fashionable Nonsense is a barrier to critical thinking, then your edit is likewise POV-pushing. It is also totally misconceived. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC) First of all, please stop insulting fellow wikipedians and dont assume they are idiots. They have their own opinions about things. That said, please compare: the book Flim-Flam! is not supernatural healing, but it is about supernatural healing, and hence it is in the corresponding category. And such examples abound. When some topic is widely covered in books, we have a special book subcategory in category:Non-fiction books by topic‎ . And the major topic of this book is "fashonable nonsense", which is a barrier critical thinking. , hence my specific categorization of the book by its major subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Your opinions in this case are wrong. "Category:Barriers to critical thinking" is specifically and only for topics that are barriers to critical thinking. It is not for books. Including the article on Fashionable Nonsense within "Category:Barriers to critical thinking" implies that the book itself is a barrier to critical thinking. That is an inappropriate misuse of the category, and it should not be allowed to stand. As for your example about Flim-Flam!, which concerns an irrelevant and unrelated article, you might want to see WP:OTHERCRAP. Each category and each article has to be considered in its own right. The fact that something is done with some other and unrelated article or category has no bearing on the discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC) As for, "And the major topic of this book is "fashonable nonsense", which is a barrier critical thinking. , hence my specific categorization of the book by its major subject" - that's totally preposterous. You are using the category in an inappropriate fashion, for which it was never intended. Your personal opinion that the ideas criticized in Fashionable Nonsense are bad and as such a "barrier to critical thinking" is irrelevant, and a laughably biased reason for adding the category. You are also utterly confused about the implications of adding the category. Regardless of your intentions, adding "Category:Barriers to critical thinking" does not imply that the ideas criticized in Fashionable Nonsense are a barrier to critical thinking, it implies that the book itself is a barrier to critical thinking. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Your disrespect to other person's opinion is appalling. Your arguments are nothing that personal attack on my way of thinking. I can do the same with yours, but I will refrain. for which it was never intended - who says so? Your personal opinion that the ideas criticized in Fashionable Nonsense are bad - no, it is the book's author opinion that they are bad. And the opinion about author's is not my opinion, and easily found in book reviews and criticisms. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Anyone can judge what a category was intended for based on A) the wording of the category and B) the articles generally included with it. Not a single book was categorized with "Category:Barriers to critical thinking" until you suddenly decided one day to add the category to the article on Fashionable Nonsense. That should suggest to anyone with any common sense that the category was never intended for books and that you are using it in a manner that it was never intended to be used. Your comments above simply confirm my impression that your reasons for adding the category are both biased and deeply confused. That the ideas discussed in Fashionable Nonsense are a barrier to critical thinking is purely your personal opinion. That opinion is inconsequential in itself, and it would still be an incorrect rationale for adding the category even if it was correct. I see that you avoid responding to the point that categorizing Fashionable Nonsense with "Category:Barriers to critical thinking" implies that the book itself is a barrier to critical thinking. That being the case, I can only assume that you are unable to respond to the point. I will remove the category again, as you are obviously misusing it and potentially confusing readers of the article in the process. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 3O Response: In my opinion, Category:Barriers to critical thinking is used to categorise pages that are common ways to prevent critical thinking - logical fallacies and the like. Whether or not the book suppressed critical thinking is not relevant -- pseudoscientific books are not the category's intended items. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek talktome 01:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC) you might want to see WP:OTHERCRAP WTF with you man? I explained how I selected the category, seeing many examples. Do you really expect everybody to understand all arcane rules and conventions? Work by example is normal way in such situations. If you want people get it right from the very beginning, write good category statutes, otherwise bug off. In lieu of guidelines, my opinion is just as good as yours. If there is many crap in wikipedia, this is not my crap. While I agree that I am not supposed to increase the craposity level, you continue personal attack. I am done talking to you smartass. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC) The justification you gave for adding the category was faulty. You implied that because some other category was used in a particular way, that therefore "Category:Barriers to critical thinking" should be used in that way also. I am sorry if my response offended you, but the point I made in reply remains valid: each category is a separate case that needs to be considered by itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC) At first, I thought this is a case of Blind men and an elephant. Two people see a category and interpret it differently. An edit war follows, and the fronts get hardened. But then, I found WP:TOPICCAT, and the WP rules are pretty clear: There are two types of category, and they are easy to identify. Staszek Lem thinks that Category:Barriers to critical thinking is a topic category (the book is about a barrier), and FreeKnowledgeCreator thinks that it is a set category (the book is not a barrier). Since Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions says that set categories are in plural and topic categories are in singular, FreeKnowledgeCreator turns out to be right. Next time, please just point to that page to avoid such conflicts from the start. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Thanks, that's the most instructive and clear reply, without hand-waving and name calling. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. The guideline also says "Sometimes, for convenience, the two types can be combined, to create a set-and-topic category (such as Category:Voivodeships of Poland, which contains articles about particular voivodeships as well as articles relating to voivodeships in general).", but this is not the case here. The proper place would be "cat:Critical thinking", but the book is already in "cat:sci skepticism". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section contraction

Hi all and Prinsgezinde!

I propose the new version here.

P.S. Although, to be honest, some of the critical claims look as if their authors simply haven't read the book. For example, about the fact that it should be understood metaphorically. Because Sokal and Bricmont prove that metaphorical interpretation is inadequate in many of the cases in question: you use a metaphor to illustrate a complex phenomenon, not to throw dust in the reader's eyes.

Criticism

Science historian Mara Beller maintained that it was not entirely fair to blame contemporary postmodern philosophers for drawing nonsensical conclusions from quantum physics, since many such conclusions were drawn by some of the leading quantum physicists themselves, such as Bohr or Heisenberg when they ventured into philosophy.

Bruce Fink asserts that some concepts which the authors consider arbitrary or meaningless do have roots in the history of linguistics, and that Lacan is explicitly using mathematical concepts in a metaphoric way, not claiming that his concepts are mathematically founded. He takes Sokal and Bricmont to task for elevating a disagreement with Lacan's choice of writing styles to an attack on his thought, which, in Fink's assessment, they fail to understand." John Sturrock accuses authors of "linguistic reductionism", claiming that they misunderstood the genres and language uses of their intended quarries. Arkady Plotnitsky, one of the authors mentioned in the original hoax) says that "some of their claims concerning mathematical objects in question and specifically complex numbers are incorrect", specifically attacking their statement that complex numbers and irrational numbers "have nothing to do with one another". He defends Lacan's view with a quote from Gottfried Leibniz.Ex irrationalibus oriuntur quantitates impossibiles seu imaginariae, quarum mira est natura, et tamen non contemnenda utilitas").</ref> He nevertheless agrees with Sokal and Bricmont that the "square root of −1" which Lacan discusses is not, in spite of its identical name, "identical, directly linked, or even metaphorized via the mathematical square root of −1".

cultural theorists and literary critics Andrew Milner and Jeff Browitt point out that Irigaray might still be correct in asserting that E = mc² is a "masculinist" equation, since "the social genealogy of a proposition has no logical bearing on its truth value." In other words, gender factors may influence which of many possible scientific truths are discovered. They also suggest that, in criticising Irigaray, Sokal and Bricmont sometimes go beyond their area of expertise in the sciences and simply express a differing position on gender politics.

In his response, Jacques Derrida writes that the Sokal hoax is rather "sad", not only because Alan Sokal's name is now linked primarily to a hoax rather than science, but also because the chance to reflect seriously on this issue has been ruined for a broad public forum that deserves better. He reminds his readers that science and philosophy have long debated their likenesses and differences in the discipline of epistemology, but certainly not with such an emphasis on the nationality of the philosophers or scientists. He calls it ridiculous and weird that there are intensities of treatment by the scientists, in particular, that he was "much less badly treated", when in fact he was the main target of the US press. Derrida then proceeds to question the validity of their attacks against a few words he made in an off-the-cuff response during a conference that took place thirty years prior to their publication. He suggests there are plenty of scientists who have pointed out the difficulty of attacking his response. He also writes that there is no "relativism" or a critique of Reason and the Enlightenment in his works. He then writes of his hope that in the future this work is pursued more seriously and with dignity at the level of the issues involved. Colaheed777 (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

References