4 ms·

> And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence. Sure, but I feel many academic histo

> And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence. Sure, but I feel many academic historians have a bit of a double standard here. Did Foucault muster up mounds of evidence for his totalizing theories of power and social structure? Not really, he gestured at a few facts and then built an elaborate structure of theory on that very wobbly foundation. Yet he continues to be taken seriously in academia, whereas Diamond never has been. I think that's partly because he was a "serious thinker" and Diamond is an "airport read," and also partly because theories like Focuault's are so flexible that it becomes a fun hammer you can apply to any nail ("social media is a panopticon!"), whereas Diamond's argument is specific to a particular historical arc, and partly because Foucault accords with the prejudices of the academy (there are hidden structures of power woven throughout society that oppress the weak) and Diamond doesn't (X determinism is bad, everything is "contingent.").

throw4847285 3y ago
I think the academy is biased AND Diamond is a dunce. Have you read any of the responses to his work from actual historians? There are deep methodological flaws. Fundamentally, what he is doing is not history. He has no interest in engaging with other academics, or in systematically analyzing all of the data. He starts with his conclusion and then cherry picks the facts, and it's popular because it appeals to people's preconceived notions. It's "lead caused the fall of the Roman Empire" level thinking. Plenty of academics hate Foucault. Ask an analytic philosopher what they think of him. And yet, those people still get to be part of the academy. Are some people shut out unfairly? Sure. Are many people shut out fairly because they aren't interested in rigor, they are only interested in exposure? Well, ok, academia has a lot of those. But at least it doesn't have Jared Diamond.

throw4847285 3y ago

I think the academy is biased AND Diamond is a dunce. Have you read any of the responses to his work from actual historians? There are deep methodological flaws. Fundamentally, what he is doing is not history. He has no interest in engaging with other academics, or in systematically analyzing all of the data. He starts with his conclusion and then cherry picks the facts, and it's popular because it appeals to people's preconceived notions. It's "lead caused the fall of the Roman Empire" level thinking. Plenty of academics hate Foucault. Ask an analytic philosopher what they think of him. And yet, those people still get to be part of the academy. Are some people shut out unfairly? Sure. Are many people shut out fairly because they aren't interested in rigor, they are only interested in exposure? Well, ok, academia has a lot of those. But at least it doesn't have Jared Diamond.