How Democracy Dies

[crazy canuck]

Look at it this way - if a lawyer indulges in sloppy thinking, the correction is likely to come - the client will eventually suffer. The individual lawyer may or may not suffer, in losing clients and possibly being sued, but that isn't certain. The real loser will be the client, but the loss may not be manifested for a long time - for example, when a real life disagreement arises between the parties to a contract drafted by the sloppy lawyer. Over a large number of contracts though, the probability of damage approaches certainty.

If a professor in humanities indulges in sloppy thinking, there may be no consequences at all, at least in the short term. That depends on how his or her institution is structured. If sloppy thinking is endemic in his or her field, the professor may indeed be rewarded for it, with grants and tenure. Arguably, that's happened to an extent, the extent of which is its own topic of debate. The students are generally not likely to care - perhaps the thoughtful ones will steer themselves into the hard sciences rather than the humanities (and the decline of prestige of the humanities vs. the sciences may itself be a consequence), but most students care only for marks, and will as happily parrot back sloppy thinking as not if that will earn them grades.

The suffering is felt at the societal level, as sloppy thinking becomes slightly more endemic than it was before, rather than slightly less. Because we have, at least in the past, looked to the humanities for help in thinking problems through.   

I thought this way back when I was a humanities undergraduate - and the current tsunami of sloppy thinking tends to support the notion. Of course, it isn't a sole causative factor, this is a disaster with many parents; it may not even be a particularly important one. But I do believe it's had a bad effect.

Your premise is flawed.  Most clients will have no idea their lawyer has engaged in sloppy thinking.  If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

The problem isn't with universities it is with a society that perceives words like 'palpable' to be difficult to understand 

[chipwich]

If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

How did the sokal hoax happen?

[crazy canuck]

If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

How did the sokal hoax happen?

I don't know.  Perhaps you have an opinion on the matter?

[HVC]

if those reviewing scholarly work have similar views, then it would still pass muster wouldn't it?

In comparison to lawyers trying to prove a contract flawed to make money.

[chipwich]

If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

How did the sokal hoax happen?

I don't know.  Perhaps you have an opinion on the matter?

You tell me, you are the one who told us that sloppy thinking will "immediately be detected"

[Eddie Teach]

A quick Google search suggests the sokal hoax happened because nobody reviewed his work before it was published.

[Malthus]

Look at it this way - if a lawyer indulges in sloppy thinking, the correction is likely to come - the client will eventually suffer. The individual lawyer may or may not suffer, in losing clients and possibly being sued, but that isn't certain. The real loser will be the client, but the loss may not be manifested for a long time - for example, when a real life disagreement arises between the parties to a contract drafted by the sloppy lawyer. Over a large number of contracts though, the probability of damage approaches certainty.

If a professor in humanities indulges in sloppy thinking, there may be no consequences at all, at least in the short term. That depends on how his or her institution is structured. If sloppy thinking is endemic in his or her field, the professor may indeed be rewarded for it, with grants and tenure. Arguably, that's happened to an extent, the extent of which is its own topic of debate. The students are generally not likely to care - perhaps the thoughtful ones will steer themselves into the hard sciences rather than the humanities (and the decline of prestige of the humanities vs. the sciences may itself be a consequence), but most students care only for marks, and will as happily parrot back sloppy thinking as not if that will earn them grades.

The suffering is felt at the societal level, as sloppy thinking becomes slightly more endemic than it was before, rather than slightly less. Because we have, at least in the past, looked to the humanities for help in thinking problems through.   

I thought this way back when I was a humanities undergraduate - and the current tsunami of sloppy thinking tends to support the notion. Of course, it isn't a sole causative factor, this is a disaster with many parents; it may not even be a particularly important one. But I do believe it's had a bad effect.

Your premise is flawed.  Most clients will have no idea their lawyer has engaged in sloppy thinking.  If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

The problem isn't with universities it is with a society that perceives words like 'palpable' to be difficult to understand 

From what you quoted:

The individual lawyer may or may not suffer, in losing clients and possibly being sued, but that isn't certain. The real loser will be the client, but the loss may not be manifested for a long time - for example, when a real life disagreement arises between the parties to a contract drafted by the sloppy lawyer. Over a large number of contracts though, the probability of damage approaches certainty.

About peer review:

depends on how his or her institution is structured. If sloppy thinking is endemic in his or her field, the professor may indeed be rewarded for it, with grants and tenure.

[crazy canuck]

Peer review has nothing to do with how the university is structured.  I don't understand what point you are trying to make there.  Are you suggesting that universities activity give tenure to professors who engage in sloppy thinking and as a result don't publish?

[Malthus]

A quick Google search suggests the sokal hoax happened because nobody reviewed his work before it was published.

Their more recent counterparts targeted peer-reviewed journals.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753

[Malthus]

Peer review has nothing to do with how the university is structured.  I don't understand what point you are trying to make there.  Are you suggesting that universities activity give tenure to professors who engage in sloppy thinking and as a result don't publish?

The point is that peer review will not detect nonsense if the peers are themselves believers in nonsense, or overly indulgent of it.

You don't have to believe me, it has been demonstrated.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753

[Oexmelin]

If a professor in humanities indulges in sloppy thinking, there may be no consequences at all, at least in the short term.... [...] (and the decline of prestige of the humanities vs. the sciences may itself be a consequence)

The idea that somehow the humanities are uniquely to blame for the decline of belief in truth, as both Joan and I remarked, relies on both a "sloppy" understanding of constructivism (or postmodernism, if you insist), and a wild overestimation of the reach of such ideas outside of academia. It is, however, the sort of narrative that is trotted out precisely to undermine the humanities, and mark them as useless.

Undermining the humanities as somehow uninterested in truth has been a narrative that emerged in reaction to certain political points made from within humanities department. The change in some of the ethical project within departments suddenly flew in the face of stuff that had been received as "true" for years - but were, in fact, not much more than the projection of past ethical projects.

This was the reaction in the 60s, against social history, for instance, that was seen as somehow less important than Great Men. Social history defended itself from such accusations by investing massively in quantitative methods, which enjoyed great prestige as markers of truth. Since then, women's history, or history of race, have been invested in making new stories emerge, which suddenly change time-honored narratives. Conservative commentators thus deplore that these are "falsehoods". Students arrive in the classroom, ready to pounce upon "false" history being taught by the professor. But numbers are not the only marker of truth - else, Great Men history would be utterly discredited. What is the "truest" account of WWI, for instance? The experience of the soldier, that of the general, the economic analysis, or the political context?

The humanities are part of an ethical project. It is one that is committed to truth, but it is not commensurate with truth. 

Sloppy thinking is bad. It happens in every field. Many fields reward it with grants and tenure: this is not a remarkable findings, or else, there would be no story of "misunderstood geniuses", or of misguided superstar CEOs. It's also quite present in the sciences as well, where a considerable number of reviews are done through checking the math, and not much more. I am sure you can find it in your own business, from lawyers who do reasonably well.

But we didn't start with "sloppy thinking". Your claim was about the status of truth, and how the humanities have undermined its value.

[Malthus]

Way I see it, lawyering of the transactional kind is sort of like (say) science in one single way - only of course on the microscale, while science is on the macroscale.

That way is that both will result in bad things visibly happening if sloppy thinking is indulged.

Bad lawyering could, and does, go undetected for years. The client isn't likely to be able to tell the difference between (say) a good contract and a bad one; that's why they hire lawyers, at vast expense.

However, one day that contract may be put to the test. A problem arises in the relationship. The client tries to rely on the contract, only to discover it is badly drafted and doesn't afford the protection the client was told to expect. So the client suffers. While this may not happen with every contract - over a large number of contracts, the probability of a disaster approaches certainty.

Similarly, people are free to indulge in bad science, and they may not live to see the problems of (say) climate change (though it is increasingly likely that people around now will, as they are already happening now). Reality will not be mocked.

The humanities are different, in that the bad effects of indulging in sloppy thinking are a lot harder to see than (say) a bad contract tested by a lawsuit, or climate changing. But that doesn't mean there are no bad effects. The argument is that we are seeing some of them happening now.   

[Oexmelin]

The point is that peer review will not detect nonsense if the peers are themselves believers in nonsense, or overly indulgent of it.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753

Indeed. Peer-reviewed is deeply flawed.

But that also concerns the sciences. "Replication", the cornerstone of the natural sciences, is in fact, almost never attempted. In many cases, the "review" aspect is concerned with checking the math - but not its underpinnings.

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/123/9/1964/282957

[chipwich]

Indeed. Peer-reviewed is deeply flawed.

But that also concerns the sciences. "Replication", the cornerstone of the natural sciences, is in fact, almost never attempted. In many cases, the "review" aspect is concerned with checking the math - but not its underpinnings.

Okay since universities can't do their job they should close down.

[Malthus]

The point is that peer review will not detect nonsense if the peers are themselves believers in nonsense, or overly indulgent of it.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753

Indeed. Peer-reviewed is deeply flawed.

But that also concerns the sciences. "Replication", the cornerstone of the natural sciences, is in fact, almost never attempted. In many cases, the "review" aspect is concerned with checking the math - but not its underpinnings.

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/123/9/1964/282957

Absolutely. The mechanism has weaknesses, they are not specific to the humanities.

I was posting this purely in response to CC's point:

If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.

... my point being peer review is not the panacea he claimed.

The difference though between the humanities and (say) hard sciences, is that while fraud or sloppy thinking may slip through peer review in both cases, eventually the hard science does have to "work". Cold Fusion famous example of junk science in physics - but there is a natural limit to how far they can go with that. At some point, it has to be shown to be true to reality, or it will be (and was) discarded.