Thread by @lawprofblawg

Ted Lasso is right. "Be curious. Not judgmental."

Curiosity is the foundation of academic endeavor. Judgment cannot come before inquiry--preanalytic vision happens, but shutting down inquiry before even questioning isn't intellectual. (Thread)

#lawtwitter #AcademicChatter

https://twitter.com/lawprofblawg/status/1666153688572755981

If we're dealing with arguments, why isn't the persuasiveness of the argument (or validation if empirics are the method) the sole determinant? Why would one care who it is?

It's one thing if it is a character reference. A character reference requires knowing the character of the person making the reference. If you don't know me, me saying X is a good person means nothing.

But an academic argument doesn't rely on character.

Sure, it might be the case you come to rely on experts outside for expertise outside your own field. But my hypothetical relates to the foundational principles of our Constitution. That eliminates the "expert outside of our field" requirement.

And there is a danger that reliance on the "expert in their field" gives them the ability to influence you outside their field.

For example, all those prominent law profs who became epidemiologists.

Attacking the questioner and attacking the hypo tell things.

It's interesting how quick academics can be sometimes to attack without even questioning first.

Academic endeavors should be about ideas, not an 8th grade popularity contest. Focusing on who said it and where it is published isn't intellectual.

Expediting is an explicit recognition that what we do in law is not based on the merit of the argument.

And I'm guilty of these things too. Because it leads to charlatanism, among other things.

Which is why I keep reminding myself that it is wrong.