I've been thinking the past few days about a twitter exchange I encountered this past weekend. Basically, a philosopher I don't know was conversing with a philosopher I do know about the work of Avner Baz, someone whose work I have featured here before. Basically, the philosopher I don't know asked if anyone has actually engaged with Baz's work, as he considers Baz's work quite good. The philosopher I know then basically replied that, no, basically everyone has ignored Baz's work, including Timothy Williamson, whose work Baz specifically targets.
Anyway, today I took a look at Baz's citation record on Google Scholar and found that my friend is basically right. For instance, Baz's 2012 book, When Words Are Called For: A Defense of Ordinary Language Philosophy (Harvard University Press), has been all but ignored by philosophers (mainly getting cited by less than a couple of dozen people outside of philosophy)–this despite the facts that it (A) challenges an entire philosophical method (the so-called method of cases) that has been absolutely central to analytic philosophy over the past several decades, and (B) has received absolutely glowing reviews at NDPR and elsewhere, the former of which concluded that, "Baz…pushes the doors wide open for another fresh start in philosophical investigations." Similarly, Baz's 2012 article in The Journal of Philosophy (!), 'Must Philosophers Rely on Intuitions?', despite appearing in one of the most preeminent journals in our field, has been cited all of 5 times in the nearly three years since its publication, three of which were self-citations (Baz referring later to his own paper).
So here's the thing. It's not as though Baz has published bad work in completely out of the way places. He was published in top-ranked journals and had a wonderfully well-reviewed book come out in a good press. Not only that: his work challenges basic methodologies that just about everyone in our field uses and has relied on for decades (which I also raised serious concerns about here, here, and here). All of this…and nothing. No responses, no refutations, no developments. Nothing. Just about no one–particularly not the famous figures whose work he critiques–appears to have paid a lick of attention. You would at least expect, if the work were bad or wrong, there would be something: responses, refutations, whatever. But this is precisely what hasn't happened. Nothing has happened.
From my perspective, Baz is far from along in this regard. Time and again I see what–by my lights, at least–are good papers and arguments that are perpetually ignored, and bad arguments treated with great reverence. Which brings me back to my concerns about the sociology of philosophy. Does academic philosophy really tend to move forward as a result of good arguments winning the day and conscientious engagement with arguments that challenge orthodoxies? Or, does it largely progress as a result of sociological factors having little to do with good philosophy? For my part, I continue to worry. But what do I know? Am I the only one who has these worries? I leave it for you to think about and discuss.
Leave a Reply