\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

what’s the deal with the “academic” writing style?

is it to obscure meaning? an overreaction to their intellect...
slimp
  06/30/20
To imitate actual great thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegge...
put on these glasses or start eating that trashcan
  06/30/20
what obscure language did nietzsche use? i think you're conf...
I am thinking of aurochs and angels
  06/30/20
Most academics avoid the hard work of proving anything and h...
ItWasHorrible
  06/30/20
...
Oh, you travel?
  06/30/20
my boss sends emails like this all the time
(~:
  06/30/20
two good answers itt so far.
slimp
  06/30/20
...
""""
  06/30/20
- In-group identification. - Elevate perceptions of exper...
~~(> ' ' )>
  06/30/20
...
slimp
  06/30/20
...
warlord kanye
  06/30/20
...
A Jurisprudence is Performed
  06/30/20
Motte and Bailey Doctrines. Troll’s Truisms are used ...
animeboi
  06/30/20
i always liked this principle. where can i find the full ver...
slimp
  06/30/20
https://philpapers.org/archive/shatvo-2.pdf br00tal taked...
animeboi
  06/30/20
ty.
slimp
  06/30/20
Most history books written by academics after, say, 2000 are...
Guy Debord
  06/30/20
The entire "study" will be a criticism of the stud...
Sickly argumentative UES Jew in puffy jacket
  06/30/20
mostly unintelligent people mimicking language they associat...
ataraxic
  06/30/20
...
slimp
  06/30/20
...
warlord kanye
  06/30/20
...
Oh, you travel?
  06/30/20
Economists write pretty clearly
Gloostick
  06/30/20
lol
Risten
  06/30/20
They do They’re the greatest scholars of our era
Gloostick
  06/30/20
https://youtu.be/OzrHwDOlTt8?t=335 Chomsky dismantles it ...
wrong
  06/30/20


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 12:10 AM
Author: slimp

is it to obscure meaning? an overreaction to their intellectual insecurity? because they’re really just that stupid and bad at using what one would think to be their primary tool?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40519550)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 3:32 AM
Author: put on these glasses or start eating that trashcan

To imitate actual great thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger, who had to use obscure language to convey esoteric meaning, in a cargo-cult like manner

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520069)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 9:09 AM
Author: I am thinking of aurochs and angels

what obscure language did nietzsche use? i think you're confusing analytic and continental phil writing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520431)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 12:42 AM
Author: ItWasHorrible

Most academics avoid the hard work of proving anything and hide the gaps by using an obscure style that doesn't say anything definitive or falsifiable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40519650)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 9:10 AM
Author: Oh, you travel?



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520434)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 10:53 AM
Author: (~:

my boss sends emails like this all the time

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520893)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 9:07 AM
Author: slimp

two good answers itt so far.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520427)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 10:31 AM
Author: """"



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520804)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 10:51 AM
Author: ~~(> ' ' )>

- In-group identification.

- Elevate perceptions of expertise and knowledge.

- Secure deference from outsiders, minimize substantive criticism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520889)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 12:08 PM
Author: slimp



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521352)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 12:59 PM
Author: warlord kanye (uspo)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521653)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 1:00 PM
Author: A Jurisprudence is Performed (was a damn fine father)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521660)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 10:53 AM
Author: animeboi

Motte and Bailey Doctrines.

Troll’s Truisms are used to insinuate an exciting falsehood, which is a desired doctrine,

yet permit retreat to the trivial truth when pressed by an opponent. In so doing they

exhibit a property which makes them the simplest possible case of what I shall call a

Motte and Bailey Doctrine(since a doctrine can single belief or an entire body of beliefs).

A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a

mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is

encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is

not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the

Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain

despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of

attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not

defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but

defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is

well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

For my purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and

Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents a philosophical doctrine or position

with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is

the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed. I think it is

evident that Troll’s Truisms have the Motte and Bailey property, since the exciting

falsehoods constitute the desired but indefensible region within the ditch whilst the trivial

truth constitutes the defensible but dank Motte to which one may retreat when pressed.

An entire doctrine or theory may be a Motte and Bailey Doctrine just by virtue of

having a central core of defensible but not terribly interesting or original doctrines

surrounded by a region of exciting but only lightly defensible doctrines. Just as the

medieval Motte was often constructed by the stonemasons art from stone in the

4

surrounding land, the Motte of dull but defensible doctrines is often constructed by the

use of the sophists art from the desired but indefensible doctrines lying within the ditch.

Diagnosis of a philosophical doctrine as being a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is

invariably fatal. Once made it is relatively obvious to those familiar with the doctrine that

the doctrine’s survival required a systematic vacillation between exploiting the desired

territory and retreating to the Motte when pressed.

The dialectic between many refutations of specific postmodernist doctrines and the

postmodernist defences correspond exactly to the dynamics of Motte and Bailey

Doctrines. When pressed with refutation the postmodernists retreat to their Mottes, only

to venture out and repossess the desired territory when the refutation is not in immediate

evidence. For these reasons, I think the proper diagnosis of postmodernism is precisely

that it is a Motte and Bailey Doctrine. I do not have time to defend that rather large claim

in detail here. Rather, we are going to look at some examples. I hope that for those

familiar with postmodernism as a whole, seeing the mechanism laid bare in a few cases

will suffice to make evident the larger truth.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520895)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 11:31 AM
Author: slimp

i always liked this principle. where can i find the full version?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521090)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 11:33 AM
Author: animeboi

https://philpapers.org/archive/shatvo-2.pdf

br00tal takedown of foucault.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521097)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 12:07 PM
Author: slimp

ty.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521347)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 11:33 AM
Author: Guy Debord

Most history books written by academics after, say, 2000 are nearly unreadable for this reason.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521099)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 11:35 AM
Author: Sickly argumentative UES Jew in puffy jacket

The entire "study" will be a criticism of the study's own limitations so you can never draw any conclusions from it. Welcome to postmodernity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521112)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 11:57 AM
Author: ataraxic

mostly unintelligent people mimicking language they associate with intelligent people. in the absence of people who can produce genuinely strong ideas, those who can at least talk like them get selected. and eventually these people become such a strong contingent of the field that they become the gatekeepers, and judge the plebs largely on the superficial standard itself.

the comedy of it is that lots of academicese isn't even that impenetrable - what makes it seem that way is that the ideas behind it are so convoluted and inherently confused, because their makers aren't so sharp.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521288)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 12:40 PM
Author: slimp



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521541)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 12:59 PM
Author: warlord kanye (uspo)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521657)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 2:51 PM
Author: Oh, you travel?



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40522362)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 12:58 PM
Author: Gloostick

Economists write pretty clearly

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521649)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 1:17 PM
Author: Risten

lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521755)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 1:23 PM
Author: Gloostick

They do

They’re the greatest scholars of our era

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521799)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 30th, 2020 1:48 PM
Author: wrong

https://youtu.be/OzrHwDOlTt8?t=335

Chomsky dismantles it in two minutes.

There is another clip that I can't find right now where Chomsky talks about talking to physicists. The physicists start explaining some principle in basic terms and Chomsky can repeat it back and follow along and the physicist starts adding complexity and Chomsky can follow along and accurately repeat it back but at some point can't follow anymore. But with humanities professors and "theory" types you cannot understand what they are saying at all and if you repeat it back to them you are always told, "no, you misunderstand me." Chomsky says that you have to decide if humanity types are actually smarter than physicists and deal with a subject matter far more complex than physics or whether the humanities types are just full of obscurantist bullshit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521961)