We Kant understand you, professor

We should be proud of rigorous academic debate. The lifeblood of this noble cause is scholarly writing. Yet modern academia is being undermined: by sloppy and superfluous language. Not only do forests fall to academic verbosity, the further expansion of human knowledge is threatened too.

Behold some examples of this insidious blight, chosen from works of reputable academics at random. I opened a paper and placed my finger on a sentence. Here is what I found:
“One way, perhaps somewhat tendentious, to put this alternative approach is to say that according to it, though there must in a sense be a reason why a basic belief is likely to be true, the person for whom such a belief is basic need not have any cognitive grasp of this reason.”

How long does it take before the academic realises he hasn’t pressed the full stop button in a while? How many prepositions or personal pronouns can there be before even the meekest mind explodes in exasperation? How often must one weep, “For the love of Zeus professor, tell me what you mean!”? Bad writing is everywhere, but this execrable twaddle is the work of supposed professional thinkers and teachers. Here is a revision: “A tendentious way to put this approach is that, although there is a reason why a basic belief is probably true, a person doesn’t need to understand the reason for that basic belief.”

Admittedly, this example came from an epistemology paper, which is not a topic for those with human levels of patience. However, the revision keeps the meaning of the sentence and the relevant terminology for only a fraction of the word count. You could further argue that the first clause is superfluous as academics should be arguing their point.

Nevertheless, the problem isn’t simply with the number of words. More seriously, imprecise language sows confusion. Here is an example of poor writing making life difficult:
“The most serious problem our civilization faces is the on-going conflict between economic activity and the biological world upon which all human activity ultimately depends.”

Obvious, isn’t it? Or is it? Is it that the conflict between economic activity and the biological world is a serious problem because human activity ultimately depends on the biological world? Or is it a serious problem that the conflict between economic activity and the biological world is that which all human activity ultimately depends?

“Civilisation’s greatest problem is the conflict between economic activity and the biological world, because the latter depends on the former.”

The purpose of academic writing is to put forward or criticise a view. A great academic paper is clear, concise and insightful. Thus we learn and develop new ideas. A paper is undermined if it is difficult to understand, because we cannot accurately absorb its content. Clear and precise language is essential, particularly for professional teachers and thinkers.

So why do academics persistently write poorly? Could it be (pray whisper it softly) that academics cannot clearly express themselves? Academics deal with challenging concepts. If they don’t have the writing skills to match, then endless waffle will surely ensue. Blame might also fall on academic culture. Only acclaimed and intelligent academics get big publishing deals. If publishers think difficult reading is equivalent to genius then we have a serious incentive to write tortuous prose.

Word count should not equal book deals or research grants. In any case, how do these travesties get through a peer review and evade editing? Either academics don’t understand or they are hostage to this ludicrous culture.

Regardless, there are excellent papers out there. Many academics write brilliantly and should be revered. A superb example is Edmund Gettier’s paper Is Justified True Belief Knowledge. His paper gave a devastating rebuttal to a widely held belief in philosophy. The paper’s clear and provocative argument is still highly influential. Compare this to Immanuel Kant whose work haunts every philosophy student. It is fair to say there is as much material interpreting Kant’s writing as there is reflection on what he actually wrote.

If you have to write ‘like’ an academic to be a ‘good’ academic, then the clarity of academic publications will only decrease. Whatever the reason, bad writing is still being published and dragging down academia as a whole. This has to change; if not for the credibility of academics or the forests of the world, then at least for strained eyes and befuddled brains.
Academics need to understand that the purpose of writing is to communicate. Full stop.