Y aún más al fondo del "bullshit"El papel de la falsificación de preferencias en la difusión del oscurantismo en la teoría social y en la sociedad

  1. Tena-Sánchez, Jordi 1
  2. León-Medina, Francisco J. 2
  1. 1 Departamento de Sociología. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
  2. 2 Universidade da Coruña
    info

    Universidade da Coruña

    La Coruña, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01qckj285

Journal:
Scio

ISSN: 1887-9853

Year of publication: 2022

Issue Title: Pensamiento crítico

Issue: 22

Pages: 209-233

Type: Article

DOI: 10.46583/SCIO_2022.22.949 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Scio

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

In this work, we try to defend several interrelated arguments. First, we argue that skepticism and critical thinking do not enjoy particularly good health in the field of social theory. Second, we argue that this is also the case at the general social level. Third, some mechanisms are discussed which could explain why bullshit and obscurantism, and not critical thinking and skepticism, proliferate in both contexts. Fourth, three areas are addressed where the crisis of critical thinking is especially serious, both at the social and academic levels: namely, the environmental, feminist and anti-racist movements. In this case, we argue that it is not just that bullshit and obscurantism are present in these debates both in the academic and political fields, but that there is a causal relationship between both areas, as well as a process of preference falsification which may be dangerous for intellectual freedom, as well as for the freedom of expression and for democracy. Finally, we discuss some possible solutions to these problems.

Bibliographic References

  • Boudon, R. (2001). La sociología que realmente importa, Papers. Revista de Sociologia. (72), 215-226.
  • Boudon, R. (2006). Homo Sociologicus:Neither a Rational noran Irrational Idiot. Papers. Revista de Sociologia. (80), 149-169.
  • Cohen, G. A. (2002). Deeper into bullshit. En S. Buss y L. Overton (Eds.). Contours of agency: Essays on themes from Harry Frankfurt. The MIT Press.
  • Eagleton, T. (1990). The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Londres: Basil Blackwell.
  • Elster, J. (1988). Uvas Amargas. Barcelona: Laie.
  • Elster, J. (1996). Review of Timur Kuran: Private Truths, Public Lies, Acta Sociologica. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939603900109
  • Elster, J. (2007). Explaining Social Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Frankfurt, H.G. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton University Press.
  • Hammersley, M. (2005). Should social science be critical? Philosophy of the social science. (35-2), 175-195.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux Inc.
  • Kuran, T.(1991). Now out of never. World Politics. DOI: 10.2307/2010422
  • Kuran, T. (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. (etc.).
  • FECYT (2016). Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en España 2016. Editorial Mic.
  • Lobera, J. y Cabrera, P. (2021). Evolución de la percepción social de aspectos científicos de la COVID–19. FECYT
  • Mulet, J.M. (2015). Medicina sense Enganys. Pòrtic Edicions.
  • Mulet, J.M. (2021). Ecologismo Real. Destino.
  • Noguera, J.A. (2006). Por qué necesitamos una Teoría Sociológica Analítica. Papers. Revista de Sociologia. (80), 7-28.
  • París, L., Peidró, C., Abril, D., Humbert, A. (2006). Conèixer i entendre’ns. Àmbits de política i societat. (34): 68-79.
  • Pinker, S. (2018). La tabla rasa. Barcelona: Espasa Libros.
  • Piñeiro Pérez, R., Núñez Cuadros, E., Cabrera García, L., Díez López, I., Escrig Fernández, R., Gil Lemus, M. Á., ... & Calvo, C. (2020). Resultados de una encuesta nacional sobre conocimiento y uso de pseudociencias por parte de los pediatras. Anales de Pediatría
  • Sokal, A. y Bricmont, J. (1998). Intellectual Impostures: Profile Books.
  • Weitz, M. (1956). The role of theory in aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (15): 27–35.
Data source: Dialnet