you're reading...

Academia’s Consilience Crisis

Academia’s Consilience Crisis in Quillette on 4/8/18 addresses a topic I’ve encountered and written about. Academic social science is currently mired in a process and approach that narrows, rather than widens, its thinking. Here’s a quote from a prominent academic social scientist:

My field is not very scholarly. We are focused on experiments and methods. We are not even scholarly about the experiments and methods used 30 years ago; we are too caught up in the present

This is what I came to see when I did a post doc at Chicago, in cultural psych; the anthropologists lived in a world of books and ideas. The psychologists lived in relatively recent journal articles.  

Ironically, the place that seemed to me to suffer the most from the crisis of consilience was Heterodox Academy (HxA), the group formed to increase viewpoint diversity on college campuses because the lack of it harms science, the quest for knowledge, and academia itself.  I’d post my thoughts in the comments section of some of their blog posts.  Some of the worst instances of the crisis of consilience came from some of HxA’s core members. 

I’d make an assertion, they’d say “Show me the evidence,” I’d list the multiple books from history and social science and philosophy (e.g., Burke, Oakshott, Sowell) that inform my positions.  They’d respond to the effect of “That’s not evidence, show me the scientific study.”

It’s the reason I’d mostly given up on following what HxA was doing (until Musa al-Gharbi’s recent post). It felt like talking to a wall. The intellectual orthodoxy was impenetrable. My experience with HxA members is what prompted me to write my essay Future of Social Science.

Human history is a massive trial and error experiment in how humans can best organize and administer societies. The evidence from this experiment is mountainous and rich. To effectively ignore it and instead focus on experiments and methods seems small minded; infantile.

I’d even suggest that this fixation on WEIRD thinking (from “The Righteous Mind” by Haidt) and the eschewing of holistic, consilient thinking is a major factor of The Coddling of the American Mind, and its accompanying campus shout downs, shut downs, no-platforming, vandalisms, riots, and assaults: It shrinks, infantilizes, rather than expands the mind.  It creates small minded, short sighted, thinking. 


2 thoughts on “Academia’s Consilience Crisis

  1. I came here after reading some of your comments on Quillette. I hope you don’t mind if I provide a link to a few of your blog posts on my puny Facebook group called “A New Radical Centrism.” While I don’t always agree with what you’re writing, I’m finding a lot of it thought-provoking.


    Posted by A New Radical Centrism (Facebook Group) | April 12, 2018, 8:22 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

I Support Viewpoint Diversity


A politically diverse group of social scientists, natural scientists, humanists, and other scholars who want to improve our academic disciplines and universities. We share a concern about a growing problem: the loss or lack of “viewpoint diversity.” When nearly everyone in a field shares the same political orientation, certain ideas become orthodoxy, dissent is discouraged, and errors can go unchallenged.

An Interpretation of Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory

This sidebar lists a series of posts which together make up an essay relating Moral Foundations Theory to today's politics, and even a little history, as viewed through The Independent Whig's six-foundation moral lens.


Venn Diagram of Liberal and Conservative Traits and Moral Foundations and

%d bloggers like this: