3 ms·
The article seems to be really pushing that law review articles are obscure things that no one put another professor of law could understand or care about, but
by kingkilr 15y ago
The article seems to be really pushing that law review articles are obscure things that no one put another professor of law could understand or care about, but as a CS student who's taken one course in ethics at a very un-humanities university, all those titles were perfectly understandable.
- _delirium 15y agoHis examples aren't even all in law, to make it worse! For example, he mentions a paper entitled "What Is Wrong With Kamm's and Scanlon's Arguments Against Taurek" from The Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy as an example of ivory-tower lawyering. But this paper is written by Tyler Doggett, a philosophy professor. He isn't even a borderline law/philosophy prof: he doesn't have a law degree (he has a philosophy degree from MIT), and he doesn't teach in a law school (he teaches in UVM's philosophy department). So it's not clear how his publishing output is relevant in any way to law school curricula. Weirdly sloppy researching/writing. Though it does open a small window onto just how dishonest that type of "quote 'incomprehensible' academic papers to show how out of touch they are" argument often is: the people making it rarely have a good-faith interest in understanding the papers they're citing, and instead quote random things without reading them.