Advertisement

Evidence-based and Evidence-free Generalisations: A Tale of Two Cultures

  • Michael Grant

Abstract

In this selection, from The Arts and Sciences of Criticism, ed. David Fuller and Patricia Waugh (1999), Tallis contrasts the scholarly procedures of science, and in particular medicine, with those prevalent in those Humanities departments where Theory holds sway. He gives an extremely clear account of the way drugs are tested, eliminating bias and the undue influence of preconception. He then contrasts this degree of rigour with what passes for evidence amongst the masters of Theory, Lacan and Derrida. In his theory of the mirror stage, Lacan simply ignored empirical evidence that challenged his claims, while Derrida’s misrepresentations of figures as various as Plato, Saussure, Peirce, Husserl and E.R. Curtius have of recent years been carefully documented. The practices of these men, and their epigones, amount, in Tallis’s view, to nothing less than a scandal. So why is it that no one seems scandalised? In fact, of course, some writers are scandalised, but their responses to what is going on have been pushed to one side or simply ignored. There is in place what Tallis is not afraid to call ‘institutionalised fraud’. The hard work of exact scholarship and the close critical response to a given text cannot possibly compete with the lure of the ‘big ideas’ and the glamour associated with them. This tendency — always a temptation in literary study — has been reinforced by the need of universities, here and in the USA, to maximise income. Those who will expound ‘big ideas’ are those who get hired, on the expectation that they will prove a bigger draw than those who base their work on scholarship and exact criticism. The consequences of this for genuine thought can be seen in the Sokal Hoax, to which Tallis devotes the last part of the reading.

Keywords

Literary Study Confirmatory Bias Mirror Stage International Stroke Trial Time High Education Supplement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 3.
    See, for example: Brian Vickers, Appropriating Shakespeare: Contemporary Critical Quarrels (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  2. J.G. Merquior, From Prague to Paris: A Critique of Structuralist and Post-structuralist Thought (London: Verso, 1986).Google Scholar
  3. Raymond Tallis, Not Saussure: A Critique of Post-Saussurean Literary Theory (London: Macmillan, 1988; 2nd edn. 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Raymond Tallis, In Defence of Realism (London: Edward Arnold, 1988, 2nd edn. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  5. John Ellis, Against Deconstruction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    See Raymond Tallis, ‘The Survival of Theory’, in Theorrhoea and After (London: Macmillan, 1999).Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    Raymond Tallis, Enemies of Hope: A Critique of Contemporary Pessimism (London: Macmillan, 1997).Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group, ‘The International Stroke Trial (IST): A Randomised Trial of Aspirin, Subcutaneous Heparin, Both, or Neither among 19,435 Patients with Acute Ischaemic Stroke’, Lancet (1997), 349: 1569–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 7.
    CAST (Chinese Acute Stroke Trial), ‘CAST: Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Early Aspirin Use in 20,000 Patients with Acute Ischaemic Stroke’, Lancet (1997), 349: 1641–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    Trisha Greenhalgh, ‘How to Read a Paper: Papers that Summarise Other Papers (Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses)’, British Medical Journal (1997), 315: 672–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 10.
    J.A. Knotterus and G.J. Dinant, ‘Medicine Based Evidence: A Prerequisite for Evidence Based Medicine’, British Medical Journal (1997), 315: 1109–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    Inaugural Lecture, College de France, in Barthes: Selected Writings, ed. and introd. Susan Sontag (Oxford: Fontana, 1983), 461.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See also the damaging evidence for Lacan’s fraudulent approach to ‘science’ in Elizabeth Roudinesco’s Jacques Lacan, trans. Barbara Bray (London: Polity, 1997).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Malcolm Bowie, in John Sturrock (ed. and introd.), Structuralism and Since: From Levi-Strauss to Derrida (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 145.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The experiments are summarised in M. Lewis and J. Brookes, ‘Self-Knowledge and Emotional Development’, in M. Lewis and L.A. Rosenblum (eds.), The Development of Affect (New York: Plenum, 1978), 205–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordon G. Gallup, ‘Self-Recognition in Primates: A Comparative Approach to the Bidirectional Properties of Consciousness’, American Psychologist, 32 (1977), 329–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    see Allen Esterson, Seductive Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud (Chicago: Open Court Books, 1993).Google Scholar
  18. Richard Webster, Why Freud was Wrong: Sex, Sin and Psycho-analysis (London: HarperCollins, 1995).Google Scholar
  19. Robert Wilcocks, Maelzel’s Chess Player: Sigmund Freud and the Rhetoric of Deceit (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994).Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    See Mary J. Devaney, ‘Since at Least Plato …’ and Other Postmodernist Myths (London: Macmillan, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    See Brian Vickers, ‘Derrida’s Reading of C.S. Peirce’, Times Literary Supplement (9 May 1997), 15.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    Kevin Mulligan, ‘How Not to Read: Derrida on Husserl’, Topoi, 10 (1991), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 22.
    James Drake, ‘Derrida’s Reading of E.R. Curtius’, Times Literary Supplement (2 May 1997), 17.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 49.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    Stuart Hall (ed.), Representations: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices (London: Sage, in association with the Open University, 1997), 11.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    George Steiner, Real Presences: Is There Anything in What We Say? (London: Faber, 1989).Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    see Paul Boghossian, ‘What the Sokal Hoax ought to teach us’, Times Literary Supplement, 13 December 1996.Google Scholar
  28. Barbara Epstein’s brief ‘The Postmodernism Debate: More on the Sokal Parody’ (Z Magazine (October 1996), 57–9).Google Scholar
  29. See also Raymond Tallis, ‘Sokal and Bricmont: Is the Beginning of the End of the Dark Ages in the Humanities?’, PN Review, 128 (1998), 35–42.Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    Raymond Tallis, Newton’s Sleep: the Two Cultures and the Two Kingdoms (London: Macmillan, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 30.
    J.G. Merquior, ‘In Quest of Modern Culture: Hysterical or Historical Humanism’, Critical Review, 5 (1991), 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bruce Charlton points out (Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 3 (1997), 169–71).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 36.
    ‘Cargo Cult Science’, in Richard P. Feynman, ‘Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!’ Adventures of a Curious Character, ed. Edward Hutchings (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1986), 341.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Raymond Tallis 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Grant
    • 1
  1. 1.Rutherford CollegeThe University of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations