Jonathan Adler’s lengthy list of problems in Nancy MacLean’s book, which seems to be about a social construct labelled “James Buchanan.”
What explains how such a book could be written by a professor and published by an academic press?
(1) Trevor Burrus suggests that it could be the Lazy Jury Fallacy at work.
(2) I note her embedded pomo context, in which “truth” and “justice” are subordinated to politicized expediency.
“Lazy jury fallacy” – a new one for me. Perhaps best avoided by avoiding psychological speculation about the motives those advocating postures one critiques. Besides, a factual, reasoned argument showing why A leads to B is more powerful.