Recently I blogged about a reviewer that refused to name the chapter authors of a volume. NDPR (my favorite philosophy publication) has now published a review by Prof. Kristin Shrader-Frechette, which does not name the targets of criticism. For example, she writes: "Several of the essays resort to preaching, instead of astute analysis. Most readers, for instance, are not interested in repeatedly hearing sermons such as that "These virtues -- love, care, and wisdom -- are the grown-up ones. They are the virtues necessary to accept a role of care-taking, of reducing our own demands on the Earth in order to cultivate the conditions for all human communities" (p. 167). Other chapters in the volume belabor the obvious, as when they claim to "have argued that we are, by our carbon emissions, unjustly dominating posterity" (p. 75)." This device is silly (because it is not so difficult to find out author chapters via, say, Amazon), weirdly disrespectful (the targets are treated as unworthy), and does not promote healthy and equal debate among differing viewpoints. Moreover, if folk really make blunders (see below) then a function of reviews is to hold them accountable (as I have argued here).
But things get really strange when the reviewer writes: "Perhaps worst of all, some essays by internationally distinguished ethicists make false, unsubstantiated, vague, or outdated scientific claims, such as the following: (A) "Electricity generated by photovoltaics is 2-5 times more expensive than electricity currently delivered to residential customers" (p. 23). (B) "If solar energy were to supply the American energy grid with a significant fraction of demand, large areas would have to be covered with photovoltaic cells" (p. 23). (C) "Wind-generated electricity . . . is even approaching the cost of electricity generation from a new, coal-fired power plant" (p. 23)." She then proceeds to spend about half of the review refuting A-C as well as several other claims by this chapter's author, whose name she had mentioned earlier in the review!
Most bizarrely: she castigates the quality of much (?) of the volume (based on her criticism of this sole chapter): "As this quick analysis of claims (A)-(F) reveals, the volume is not only uneven in quality and scientific accuracy, but some of the essays are self defeating. If distinguished ethicists (who appear not to know the relevant science) make egregious errors -- such as (A)-(F) -- in reporting on clean alternatives to fossil fuels, they not only mislead readers but also harm the CC-mitigation efforts they obviously support. They hurt their own cause. The problem of the unevenness of the volume might have been solved by including essays by reputable ethicists who work on CC issues....Their essays are almost certain to have been better than many of the selections that appear in this anthology."
Recent Comments