Thread by @Katja_Thieme

#Quillette published its house phrenologist's lament on having lived the last two years "in exile" from academia. The subheading is to cringe for: "Academia has become an intellectual prison, and many incarcerated professors are compelled to live a dual existence." Let's see. 1/

Bo Winegard says he was shocked and bewildered when he lost his job. He'd thought academia was a place "guided by evidence and argument instead of political ad hominem." I've read some of this papers. Rich in evidence and meticulous in argumentation isn't what I'd call them. 2/

He remembers his literature degree, reading French theorists, on the side discovering Robert Wright and Richard Dawkins, and turning to evolutionary psychology as a result. 3/

Very funny: "I was baffled by the persistence of literary criticism that remains uninformed by Darwinian analysis, and that even defies it (e.g., Freudianism). Why should we not use the best intellectual tools at our disposal to understand Shakespeare, Dickens, or Faulkner?" 4/

Who does Freudian literary analysis today? Anyone?

"When I started to include evolutionary analyses in my papers, my arguments were vehemently attacked." You don't say. I'd like to see those papers first, please. 5/

"I suspect that in most literature classes at the time, including the concept of penis envy in a paper would have been greeted with more sympathy than including the concept of inclusive fitness."

First, that is not what we call evidence, dear Bo. That is speculation. 6/

Second, please recognize the difference between employing concepts from a past theory (even if outdated) in one's literary analysis because that theory was prominent and shaped writers' thinking, and square-holing a theory onto literature to make yourself look scientific. 7/

Hilarious to spend one paragraph writing: my love of literature, my careful reading of texts, my interest in the nuances of diction came up against profs who forced "texts onto a procrustean bed of progressive ideological concerns" (did you read this text before publishing?). 8/

And then follow up in the next sentence with: "I was also searching for an academic discipline that was hospitable Darwinian analysis."

What came first, the text or the theory? 9/

He wasn't just a lefty, folks, he was a FAR-lefty. Not into Marx, but capitalism-critical. More lefty than some of his profs! (Ha ha ha. As if that were surprising and shocking to anyone who knows academia.)

But! He, the literature student, also "took Darwinism seriously." 10/

He means that "philosophical or scientific hypotheses" needed to be challenged "through debate, not castigation, moral opprobium, ostracism, and censorship."

Funny to see this elaborate list of objections but actual research represented only by "debate." 11/

Let me skip over a bunch of wordy paragraphs that have no evidence and little argumentation in them. 12/

He's a social psychologist now, with a tenure track job, and oops: "My job, as I saw it, was to write with candor and care about human nature and social behavior, and to promote scientific dialogue and debate."

Focus on evidence, method, and argumentation has disappeared. 13/

It's just debate now, and, oh, dialogue. To stop talking because, you know, lack of evidence or shoddy method, would mean "surrender to the prevailing political wisdom of the scholarly community. . .because [he] offended the moral sensibilities of progressives."

Convenient. 14/

The pattern seems clear: "Academia is supposed to promote free inquiry and debate. It is supposed to be full of contentious discourse, controversial claims, bold hypotheses, and rigorous argument."

Hm, I think academia should be full of sound research and solid evidence. 15/

Bo doesn't have evidence on his side and he knows it. So he's doing the "but free speech!" move: isn't academia supposed to have wild speculation and hot-headed debate where nobody faces professional consequences, in case that kind of behaviour reveals some surprising truth? 16/

Friends, he could have been a Galileo. 17/

"Science remains the most effective instrument for understanding the world that we have yet devised. Understanding the world, and its predictable chains of cause-and-effect, remains the best way to promote human flourishing."

Writes man who has presented no cause-and-effect. 18/

Fin. 19/

To along-the-way commenters @CathrynTownsend, @kenyatta_pow, @MustacheBob2, @colourmeamused_, @TheAgentNDN, and @james_zeigler.