5
" Nevertheless, it seems to us that there are some criteria that can be used to help distinguish between the two sorts of difficulty. First, when the difficulty is genuine, it is usually possible to explain in simple terms, at some rudimentary level, what phenomena the theory is examining, what are its main results and what are the strongest arguments in its favour.247 For example, although neither of us has any training in biology, we are able to follow, at some basic level, developments in that field by reading good popular or semi-popular books. Second, in these cases there is a clear path – possibly a long one – that will lead to a deeper knowledge of the subject. By contrast, some obscure discourses give the impression that the reader is being asked to make a qualitative jump, or to undergo an experience similar to a revelation, in order to understand them. "
― Alan Sokal , Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science
6
" Why does it matter? The concept of ‘truth’ as something dependent upon facts largely outside human control has been one of the ways in which philosophy hitherto has inculcated the necessary element of humility. When this check upon pride is removed, a further step is taken on the road towards a certain kind of madness – the intoxication of power which invaded philosophy with Fichte, and to which modern men, whether philosophers or not, are prone. I am persuaded that this intoxication is the greatest danger of our time, and that any philosophy which, however unintentionally, contributes to it is increasing the danger of vast social disaster. (Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 1961a, p. 782) Why spend so much time exposing these abuses? Do the postmodernists represent a real danger? Certainly not for the natural sciences, at least not at present. "
― Alan Sokal , Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science
8
" Of course, no work in this genre would be complete without an allusion to Gödel’s theorem: This drifting of figures and geometric figuring, this irruption of dimensions and transcendental mathematics, leads us to the promised surrealist peaks of scientific theory, peaks that culminate in Gödel’s theorem: the existential proof, a method that mathematically proves the existence of an object without producing that object. (Virilio 1991, p. 66) In reality, existential proofs are much older than Gödel’s work; and the proof of his theorem is, by contrast, completely constructive: it exhibits a proposition that is neither provable nor falsifiable "
― Alan Sokal , Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science
