Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T16:56:02.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hard and Soft Obscurantism in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Jon Elster
Jon Elster*
Affiliation:
Collège de France
*
Jon Elster, Collège de France, 3 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris, FRANCE Email: je70@columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper argues that the contemporary social sciences and humanities are in a deep crisis, due to the prevalence of obscurantist arguments. Whereas many have denounced the “soft obscurantism” derived from what is sometimes called “French theory”, the “hard obscurantism” of many forms of mathematical and statistical social science also deserves to be singled out for criticism. The paper further argues that obscurantism does not merely represent a waste of intellectual effort, but has caused harm to countless individuals, ranging from parents of autistic children to market investors. Finally the paper considers some of the psychological mechanisms that may sustain obscurantism and constitute obstacles to overcoming it.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 58 , Issue 1-2: The Humanities Today , May 2011 , pp. 159 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, R (1995) Statistics as Principled Argument. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Achen, C (2002) “Towards a New Political Methodology,” Annual Review of Political Science, 5: 423-450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althusser, L (1970) “Les Appareils idéologiques de l’État,” La Pensée, 151: 3–38.Google Scholar
Barry, B (2001) Culture and Equality. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
Bhidé, A (2009) “In Praise of More Primitive Finance,” Economists’ Voice, 6(3): 1–8.Google Scholar
Camerer, C, Loewenstein, G, Rabin, M, eds (2004) Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G A (2002) “Deeper into Bullshit,” in Ross, S, Overton, L (eds) Contours of Agency. Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt, pp. 321–339. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J (2004) Hypocrisy and the Politics of Politeness. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R (1994) House of Cards. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, J, Wolfers, J (2005) “Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate,” Stanford Law Review, 58: 791–846.Google Scholar
Elster, J (1983) Sour Grapes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J (2007) Explaining Social Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J (2009a) “Excessive Ambitions,” Capitalism and Society, 4(2): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J (2009b) “Interpretation and Rational Choice,” Rationality and Society, 21(1): 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fessenden, F (2000) “Deadly Statistics: A Survey of Crime and Punishment,” New York Times, Sep 22.Google Scholar
Foucault, M (1977) Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, M (1980) “The Confession of the Flesh,” in Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings (ed. Gordon, Colin). London: Harvester.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H (2005) On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, D (2005) Statistical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freedman, D (2010) Statistical Models and Causal Inference: A Dialogue with the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gambetta, D, Origgi, G (2009) “L-Worlds: the Curious Preference for Low-Quality and its Norms,” Ox. Series of Working Papers in Linguistics, 1(23); www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/documents/working-papers/2009/2009-08.pdf.Google Scholar
Gjelsvik, O (2006) “Bullshit Illuminated », in Elster, J, Gjelsvik, O, Hylland, A, Moene, K O (eds) Understanding Choice, Explaining Behaviour, pp. 101–111. Oslo: Oslo Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T, Griffin, D, Kahneman, D, eds (2002) Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, S, Stiglitz, J (1980) “On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets,” American Economic Review, 70(3): 393–408.Google Scholar
Heydt-Stevenson, J (2000) “‘Slipping into the ha-ha’: Bawdy Humor and Body Politics in Jane Austen's Novels,” Nineteenth-Century Literature, 55(3): 309–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R, Lévi-Strauss, C (1962) “Les Chats de Charles Baudelaire,” L’Homme, 2(1): 5–21.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D, Slovic, P, Tversky, A, eds (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D, Tversky, A, eds (2000) Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolakowski, L (1978) Main Currents of Marxism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loftus, E (2003) “Our Changeable Memories: Legal and Practical Implications,” Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 4(3): 231–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loftus, E, Ketcham, K (1994) The Myth of Repressed Memory. New York: Saint Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Lott, J R (2000) More Guns, Less Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
de Montaigne, M. (1991) Essays. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Nature (2009) “Psychology: a Reality Check,” Nature, 461: 847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Said, E (1989) “Jane Austen and Empire,” in Eagleton, T. (ed.) Raymond Williams: Critical Perspectives, pp. 150–164. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Said, E (1993) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Severson, K D, Aune, J A, Jodlowski, D (2007) “Bruno Bettelheim, Autism, and the Rhetoric of Scientific Authority,” in Osteen, Mark (ed.) Autism and Representation, pp. 65–77. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sokal, A (1996) “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” Social Text, 46/47: 217–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, A, Bricmont, J (1999) Impostures intellectuelles. Paris: Livre de poche.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C, Vermeule, A (2005) “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs,” Stanford Law Review, 58: 703–750.Google Scholar