Teissier affair

The Teissier affair was a controversy that occurred in France in 2001. French astrologer Élizabeth Teissier was awarded a Doctorate in Sociology by Paris Descartes University for a doctoral thesis in which she argued that astrology was being oppressed by science. Her work was contested by the scientific community within the context of the science wars, and compared to the Sokal hoax. Criticisms included the alleged failure to work within the field of sociology and also lacking the necessary scientific rigour for a doctoral thesis in any scientific field. The university and jury who awarded the degree were harshly criticised, though both they and Teissier had supporters and defenders.

Élizabeth Teissier in 2009

Teissier's doctorate

On April 7, 2001, Elizabeth Teissier defended her thesis[1] entitled Situation épistémologique de l'astrologie à travers l'ambivalence fascination-rejet dans les sociétés postmodernes[2][3] ("The Epistemological Situation of Astrology in Relation to the Ambivalent Fascination/Rejection of Postmodern Societies")[4] – accounts of the defense have been published.[5][6] Her studies at the University of Paris Descartes (a member of the Sorbonne University alliance), were under the supervision of Michel Maffesoli, an Emeritus Professor of Sociology.[3] The central idea of the thesis was described by The New York Times as being that astrology is being oppressed by science, which Teissier called "official science" and "monolithic thought".[4] Teissier argued, however, that her work is devoid of bias and had "focused only on the misunderstanding that astrology as a multimillennial knowledge vehicle" provokes.[7] Her prepared statement was enthusiastically received by her supporters, but there was also a declaration from the editor-in-chief of Science et Vie Junior that what was occurring was a "farce".[8][9] At end of the defense, the jury deliberated only briefly before Serge Moscovici admitted Teissier to her doctoral degree[10] with the "very honourable" distinction.[11][12]

Initial reaction

Controversy erupted in the scientific community following the decision, and several sociologists also publicly challenged its legitimacy.[13][14][15] The university was criticised for granting the degree, as was the jury, along with Teissier's statements in support of astrology as a science,[13][14] though the university rejected accusations of "irresponsibility".[16] A petition signed by over 370 sociologists was sent to Professor Pierre Daumard, the President of the university;[17] he responded that the Teissier had complied with all university requirements and it is not his place to question the "guarantees of the scientific validity of the thesis" from the independent jury.[16] Daumard also defended that astrology is a legitimate subject for sociological study for its impact on society,[16] a point on which Teissier's critics agreed.[18] These critics were themselves criticised for their "incendiary" complaints which targeted her personally for her astrological beliefs instead of based on her thesis.[19] Critics were also described as engaging in a witch-hunt whose true target was the academic reputation of Michel Maffesoli.[20] Maffesoli addressed the controversy in an email on 23 April 2001, acknowledging that the thesis included some "slippages" but minimising the importance of these errors.[21] Maffesoli added that there is a "manhunt" against him and more broadly against scientific and intellectual rigor in "diverse approaches to sociology",[21] but still engaged with critics such as Christian Baudelot at an ASES-organised symposium on the Teissier affair.[17][22][23] Maffesoli did state during the defense that he had tried to keep Teissier focused on the sociological impact of astrology rather than discussing its scientific legitimacy, while still maintaining that the thesis demonstrated sufficient sociological significance to justify awarding the doctorate.

AFIS analysis

Once the thesis was available following the defense, the Association française pour l'information scientifique (AFIS) organised for a group to critique the thesis;[22][24] the analysis was published by a multi-disciplinary group (two experts in pseudoscience, including the editor of the AFIS Science et pseudo-sciences, three astrophysicists, two sociologists, and a philosopher) on 6 August 2001.[25][26] They looked at the scientific, philosophical, and sociological aspects of Teissier's thesis,[25] describing it as "not a thesis in sociology but actually pro-astrological advocacy".[27] They concluded that the Teissier's work did not meet the requirements of scientific rigor of doctoral research, regardless of the discipline in question.[28] They described the jury as having accepted the thesis "in defiance of basic academic requirements of objectivity and intellectual honesty" in part because the AFIS group's multidisciplinary analysis shows that "no relevant standard (analytical rigor, objectivity, indication of sources, style of writing, etc.) had truly been fulfilled".[18] They comment all Teissier has achieved is to "demonstrate once again that [astrology] does not deserve the status of an intellectual discipline that can be taught in a university course".[18] According to the journal Skepter, the "thesis pretends to provide irrefutable proof that astrology is a science, but the author has no idea what constitutes a scientific proof, she is muddleminded about basic astronomical and astrological facts, and the pièce de resistance of her argument consists of statements about Michel Gauquelin which can only be called lies."[8] Examples of excerpts from the thesis which bear this out, according to Broch, include unsupported medical claims, fundamental errors in astronomy, and a lack of proper evidence.[29] Teissier was "completely appalled" that a "tiny group" would question the award of her doctorate and did not exclude the possibility of suing the AFIS, who published the critique of her thesis, after its "intolerable attack" on academic freedom.[23]

Wider context

Discussion of the circumstances of Teissier's doctorate occurred and continues to occur with the context of the science wars, a dispute which pitted humanities academics taking postmodernist perspectives against scientists taking positivist and rationalist approaches.[30] In particular, comparisons have been made to the Sokal hoax, in that each case exemplifies the alleged support for pseudoscience and hostility to science within postmodernist circles.[31][32] The emphatic language and personalised tone of the debate around Teissier's work was fuelled by the broader ongoing conflict,[33] as was the targeting of Maffesoli[20] and the description of the university as "heavily influenced by so-called post-modern ideologists" (emphasis in original).[34] It also explains criticisms of the jury for its failure to seek input from scientists (a bone of contention in the science wars), and the unusually personalised tone of comments such as that Teissier, "very astutely, has taken advantage of the intellectual weakness and/or incompetence of ... the nincompoops who accepted to ratify such nonsense" (bold emphases from original omitted).[29]

References
  1. "Procédure de Soutenance". Université Paris Decartes: école doctorale – sciences humaines et sociales – cultures, individus, sociétés (in French). Université Paris Decartes. pp. 15–18.
  2. Teissier, Élizabeth (2001). Situation épistémiologique de l'astrologie à travers l'ambivalence fascination/rejet dans les sociétés postmodernes (Ph.D.). Paris Descartes University.
  3. Jean-Paul Krivine, « Einstein et l’astrologie : une citation fausse qui a la vie dure », pseudo-sciences.org, December 2001.
  4. Eakin, Emily (June 2, 2001). "Star Wars: Is Astrology Sociology?". New York Times. Retrieved 27 June 2016.
  5. Krivine, Jean-Paul (9 April 2001). "Soutenance de la thèse d'Elizabeth Teissier". Science et pseudo-sciences (in French). Association française pour l'information scientifique. Retrieved 14 October 2016.
  6. Moscovici, Serge; Maffesoli, Michel; Bonardel, Françoise; Tacussel, Patrick (2001). "Thèse de Mme. Germaine Hanselmann" (in French). ASES archives maintained by Philippe Cibois, former President. Retrieved 14 October 2016.
  7. Gourdin, Caroline (18 August 2001). "Qui prédira la fin de l'affaire Teissier?". Le Soir (in French). p. 9. Retrieved 8 October 2016.
  8. Hoogcarspel, Eric; Nienhuys, Jan W. (June 2001). "ET in the Sorbonne: The creation of a doctor in astrology". Skepter.
  9. Rotmann, Charlotte (9 April 2001). "Elizabeth Teissier docteur des astres – Polémique universitaire autour de sa thèse de sociologie". Libération (in French). Retrieved 8 October 2016.
  10. Lahire, Bernard; Cibois, Philippe; Desjeux, Dominique (2001). "La non thèse de sociologie d'Élizabeth Teissier". Le magazine de l'homme moderne (in French). Retrieved 8 October 2016.
  11. Watson, Rod (2004). "Case Study: Examining a French PhD Thesis in Sociology and Related Disciplines". In Tinkler, Penny; Jackson, Carolyn (eds.). The Doctoral Examination Process: A Handbook For Students, Examiners And Supervisors. McGraw-Hill Education. pp. 72–73. ISBN 9780335213054.
  12. Martin, Olivier (7 August 2006). "Rappels et Conseils pour la Constitution des Jurys de Thèses et l'Organisation des Soutenances" (in French). Université Paris Decartes. Retrieved 8 October 2016.
  13. Cf. Christian Baudelot, Roger Establet, La sociologie sous une mauvaise étoile, Le Monde, 18 avril 2001 ; a copy is available from homme-moderne.org.
  14. C.f., for example Alain Bourdin, La sociologie, l'antithèse de Teissier, Libération, 19 avril 2001, and the articles published in the press review by the AFIS : part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4.
  15. Serge Paugam, La Pratique de la sociologie, Paris, PUF, 2008, p. 117 ; cf. également Gérald Houdeville, Le Métier de sociologue en France depuis 1945.
  16. Daumard, Pierre (2001). ""René-Descartes" and Élizabeth Teissier" (in French). ASES archives maintained by Philippe Cibois, former President. Retrieved 9 October 2016.
  17. Filâtre, Daniel (30 December 2001). "Affaire Teissier: historique – Présentation par Daniel Filâtre, président de l'Ases (extrait de la Lettre de l'ASES 30 de décembre 2001)" (in French). ASES archives maintained by Philippe Cibois, former President. Retrieved 8 October 2016.
  18. Audouze, Jean; Savoie, Denis (1 October 2001). "À propos de la " thèse " de Madame Élizabeth Teissier". Science et pseudo-sciences. Association française pour l'information scientifique. Retrieved 6 October 2016.
  19. Bolle de Bal, Marcel (20 September 2001). "Carte blanche Astrologie, sociologie et media". Le Soir (in French). p. 17. Retrieved 8 October 2016.
  20. Lazar, Judith (28 May 2001). "Faut-il brûler la thèse de l'astrologue Elizabeth Teissier? Retour sur une chasse aux sorcières". Le Figaro (in French). Retrieved 8 October 2016.
  21. Lahire, Bernard (2002). "Comment devenir docteur en sociologie sans posséder le métier de sociologue?". European Journal of Social Sciences (in French). 40 (122: Sociologie et Sociologues Pour Quoi Faire?): 41–65.
  22. Morin, Hervé (15 May 2001). "La thèse d'Elizabeth Teissier ravive la fracture au sein de la sociologie". Le Monde (in French). Retrieved 9 October 2016.
  23. Morin, Hervé (18 August 2001). "La thèse d'Élizabeth Teissier passée au crible des critiques rationalistes". Le Monde (in French). Retrieved 12 October 2016.
  24. Association française pour l'information scientifique (11 April 2001). "Communiqué de l'AFIS". Retrieved 6 October 2016.
  25. Lahire, Bernard; Cibois, Phillipe; Desjeux, Dominique; Audouze, Jean; Broch, Henri; Krivine, Jean-Paul; Pecker, Jean-Claude; Savoie, Denis; Bouveresse, Jacques (6 August 2001). Analyse de la thèse de Madame Elizabeth Teissier soutenue le 7 avril 2001 à l'Université Paris et intitulée: Situation épistémologique de l'astrologie à travers l'ambivalence fascination/reject dans les sociétés postmodernes (PDF) (in French). Association française pour l'information scientifique. Retrieved 12 October 2016. Also available as a .doc file at home-modern.org and originally published on the website of the AFIS journal Science et pseudo-sciences.
  26. l'analyse d'Henri Broch, 2001 ; Analyse de la thèse de Madame Elizabeth Teissier, 6 août 2001.
  27. Association française pour l'information scientifique (25 April 2001). "COMMUNIQUÉ À LA PRESSE". Retrieved 6 October 2016.
  28. Bernard Lahire; Philippe Cibois; Dominique Desjeux; Jean Audouze; Henri Broch; Jean-Paul Krivine; Jean-Claude Pecker; Jacques Bouveresse (6 August 2001). "Analyse de la thèse de Madame Elizabeth Teissier". Retrieved 6 January 2008.
  29. Broch, Henri; Nienhuys, Jan W. (2001). "On the doctoral thesis of Ms Germaine (Elizabeth) Teissier". Retrieved 6 October 2016.
  30. Weldon, Stephen P. (2013). "29: The Social Construction of Science". In Ferngren, Gary B. (ed.). Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 9781421412825.
  31. Heap, Michael (2005). "The 12th European Skeptics Congress". Skeptical Adversaria. Association for Skeptical Enquiry. 2005 (4): 5.
  32. Hoock, Jochen (2013). "Science Wars? Historical, Social, and Epistemological Aspects of the "Sokal-Debate"". In Carrier, Martin; Roggenhofer, Johannes; Küppers, Günter; Blanchard, Philippe (eds.). Knowledge and the World: Challenges Beyond the Science Wars. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 307–322. ISBN 9783662081297.
  33. Bricmont, Jean; Johnstone, Diana (August 2001). "L'astrologie, la gauche et la science". Le Monde diplomatique (in French). p. 22. Retrieved 10 October 2016.
  34. Steinberg, Stefan (21 September 2001). "Astrology rehabilitated at the Sorbonne university in Paris". World Socialist Web Site. International Committee of the Fourth International. Retrieved 6 October 2016.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.