[ Top : Articles : "Summary of Articles from Le Monde" : Other Articles ]
====================== Feb 25th, 1997 All these papers have been published in _Le Monde_, except for (NL), in which is published all the French significant papers on Sokal's hoax so far. Except for (NW) they all have been published in _Le Monde_'s opinion columns. _Le Monde_ (about 350,000 buyers each day in 93), and _Liberation (about 170,000 in 93) are the two biggest left-center French national daily newspapers. The texts' length varies from about, say, 6Kb to 20Kb. I first include two references about Latour and Le Pen, since Salomon refers to this in his text. Summaries are my own. They are a bit "useless" since the papers are very dense, but it gives you an hint on the controversy. (BL1)"A new offence : to do some politics" Bruno Latour, 4 Oct 96. ->Those who wants to censor or to answer Le Pen when he claims races are inequal does not understand science should not interfer with politics. Furthermore, science cannot prove that races are not inequal. (AH)"It is wise to forbid" Antoine Hennion, 15 Oct 96. -> A criticism of (BL1). The title refers to the French famous slogan from May 68 "It is forbidden to forbid", since AH thinks BL's dangerous and unexpected purism seems to be ages old. AH answers BL in his own field, using his own words, which is not surprising since AH is head of the departement BL is working in. (NL) "Sokal's Hoax", _Liberation_, Natalie Levisalles, 3 Dec 96. ->NL is a journalist at _Liberation_. Like _Nature_'s paper, it writes about the facts only, plus an interview with Sokal and an interview with BL. BL criticizes Sokal for putting all the humanities in the same bag, while "people like me have a scientific background". (NW)"The pedagogical hoax of Pr. Sokal", Nicolas Weill, 20 Dec 96. ->NW is a journalist at _Le Monde_. He writes about the facts of the controversy in the US. (DD)"Sokal is not Socrate", Denis Duclos, 3 Jan 97. ->(NW) is wrong. Sokal's hoax should not be taken seriously. It is meaningless, except to prove that US scientists who criticize French intellectuals as well as Freud, are anti-Europeans. DD is a sociologist. (JB)"The true meaning of the Sokal affair", Jean Bricmont, 14 Jan 97. -> (DD) is wrong. The true meaning is to catch some attention upon the lack of rigor in humanities. JB is writing with Sokal a book on the errors and the impostures by the post-modern philosophers. JB is teacher in theoretical physics in Belgium. (PG)"French rail against the US professor", Pierre Guerlain, 14 Jan 97. -> (DD) is wrong. What does DD read ? Sokal's hoax is not just an isolated "coup" : DD may not believe it, but there are some US scientists who are thinking about the problem with the relativists for quite a long time. Sokal is not anti-European, but (DD) may well be anti-American. PG teaches a course in American Civilisation in France. (BL2)"Is there a science after the cold war ?", Bruno Latour, 18 Jan 97 -> (JB) is too modest. The only interesting thing is why does this hoax interest so many people ? _Social Text_ is a bad journal, it has no peer-review system, and if Sokal help us to make this journal disappear, BL will applaud to it. But the true interest is explained by the fact that after the cold war, the US physicists need to find new enemies : for them France is a new Columbia, which produces very dangerous "intellectual drugs". (AS)"Why I wrote my parody", Alan Sokal, 31 Jan 97. -> (BL) is too modest. AL disagrees that _Social text_ is a bad journal even though it has no peer-review system, In Sokal's opinion, _Social Text_ can publish very interesting issues. Furthermore, if it is a matter of physicists looking for new enemies because they are searching for new reasons to receive funds, why are many other scientists joining him ? And BL is wrong in (NL) : he is amongst the targets, Sokal's parody contains some excerpts from BL's papers. AS explains that BL's tactic to defend his field is to present it without all the significant developments : BL simply writes about the now well accepted conclusions that nobody, including Sokal, ever considered to criticize. AS also writes that BL is deliberately ambiguous : he can be understood in a way provocative enough so that it will make his books sell a lot, and in the same time he is able to answer "I have never said that" when he is faced with criticism by scientists. (JS)"Sokal's burst of laugh", Jean-Jacques Salomon, 31 Jan 97. -> AS reminds us that relativism is also an opportunity to write everything you want. Even in the field of politics : JS gives an excerpt of a speech by Mussolini which looks a lot like (BL1). JS is a teacher in technology. (MR)"Thanks to heaven, Sokal, and his peers", Michel Rio, 11 Feb 97 -> a strong, funny, criticism of (DD) and (BL2), by a novelist, who is not a specialist in the field, but who dares to give his opinion since the words seemingly have an huge role in the controversy. From his point of view, (DD), (BL) and al, should not only learn some science, but should also learn to write. To his ears, the words of (BL) and (DD) are nothing more than what may be translated into "the hissing of a punctured ego". This last paper so far is the longest of the lot, and one of the most easily understandable by the man in the street, in my opinion. So far (BL) has lost the battle of the words in _Le Monde_, in my opinion. Emmanuel Marin Paris, France