Teissier affair

[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.

[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.

"[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.

[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).