He much more frequently cites his own articles than external ones, and when he does cite external ones, they're either news articles from journalists, or in the

He much more frequently cites his own articles than external ones, and when he does cite external ones, they're either news articles from journalists, or in the narrow case when they are published papers, they're from a field he knows well (psychiatry, for which I'd be happy to give him a pass). The point is not only whether he does it, but the degree to which he makes an honest point and engages with the surrounding literature. In his article on Marx, he only reads Marx through a philosopher who is absolutely not renowned for his expertise on Marxology, Peter Singer. Does that count as a citation? I suppose so. Is it an honest attempt to engage with the discussion around the topic? Not really. I was getting at the idea that Scott likes to invent concepts that already have some standing, if in a slightly different form and terminology, already present in the literature. He does not build upon that work, or cite it. I'm never one to argue against novelty, but for a reader introduced to these concepts, some due diligence should be made to see what already exists out there. Arguing against a "popular view", as if it is the forefront of debate on the topic (which he does, if he discusses the topic in the formal sense), is just as silly as an amateur physicist who believes the scientific community is localized entirely in pop-sci books and Twitter.