menu

Defining Pseudoscholarship

Defining Pseudoscholarship September 26, 2014

Scholarship involves the building of consensus and the challenging of thereof, and so it is easy to find oneself confused about when a view is merely a minority or even a fringe scholarly viewpoint, and when it has crossed the line into pseudoscholarship. And so I thought this comment by Paul Regnier deserved to be highlighted in a post:

What defines a theory as pseudoscholarship is not that it goes against the consensus. Pseudoscholarship tends to

  • Denigrate entire scholarly fields
  • Largely ignore established academic channels
  • Largely ignore or parody academic conventions
  • Reflect a narrow range of ideological perspectives
  • Reject entire meta-narratives, not points within them
  • Make sensationalist claims
  • Appeal to dubious methodological privilege BUT
  • In reality employ flawed methods
  • Rely on supernatural over natural explanations
  • Be developed and supported disproportionately by non-specialists.

I make that 10 out of 10 for mythicism.

Does this get at the key characteristics? Would you add anything to the list or subtract anything from it?

 

"You have provided no basis for your assertions. Until you do my post from real ..."

Understanding Whiteness
"Does Mark Bilby assert only a "hypothetical reconstruction," or is he claiming to have discovered ..."

Historical Jesus Comparisons
"The meme quotes you but the blog post you like to says you quoted it ..."

The Most Extraordinary and Implausible Inventions ..."
"As far as I can see, Albert Schweitzer still has the last word on this ..."

Historical Jesus Comparisons

Browse Our Archives