That book is essentially worthless. Its methodology is to read through philosophers and literary critics, find places where they talk about science, evaluate whether they talk about science accurately, and when they do not, to dismiss their work.
Picking out bad analogies and inapposite asides is not a good use of anyone's time.
You're wrong. Again, the book deals with this point directly.
- "Their talk" of science is not merely inaccurate, it is _disingenuous_
- This disingenuousness raises questions about the authors' sincerity (which the authors of Intellectual Impostures are at pains to limit to the scientific areas, but could well be extended)
- They do not "dismiss the work" of the authors
- They are at pains to try and work out what the authors might have meant (including unpicking "bad analogies" or "inappropriate asides".
Once again I'm required to ask for evidence of this from someone likely not to have actually read the book closely.
I'd be happy to amend "inaccurate" to "disingenuous" and "dismiss the work" to "try and work out what the authors might have meant [and then dismiss]". I don't at all mind making those semantic adjustments.
But the point still stands, as you put it, that "the authors of Intellectual Impostures are at pains to limit [their inquiry] to the scientific areas."
What is the use of that? I mean, sure, it's fine for the Bruno Latour chapter, because Latour's work is actually on science. But what's the point of demonstrating that Irigaray mangles fluid mechanics and Lacan mangles topology, in books that aren't about fluid mechanics or topology? Who cares? Pointing it out isn't wrong per se. But it also, despite Bricmont's extensive handwaving, doesn't prove anything worthwhile.
Because they use their supposed knowledge of maths (in Lacan's case) to intimidate the reader into thinking they're saying something profound, and that it's based on an understanding of mathematics.
This is not my supposition. I had these very arguments with literary theorists at university. They preferred to believe Lacan's mathematical credentials over mine.
Picking out bad analogies and inapposite asides is not a good use of anyone's time.