People like Jon Elster and Lionel Page much be culture war ideologues, I see.
The LW/rationalist space, and other spheres adjacent to it, have a disdain for traditional philosophy, but have spent very little time engaging with that philosophy and giving sufficient reasons as to why it’s not important, or not even worth engaging with.
The majority of people who hold just about any viewpoint are going to be uninformed, so arguing against the average holder of any idea is going to be pretty trivial as long as you know a bit of the subject matter. The value of an idea is surely roughly proportional instead to the strongest argument for it.
I’m saying that the argument that “academic philosophy is verbose and obscure on purpose” isn’t a good argument, and is most often repeated by people with little knowledge of the field, so often that it’s become something of a culture war trope. At the very least it’s a well-known quality of LW and similar spaces.
As in the comments above, there is often no actual paper, no argument, just vague assertions and a couple random name drops, as if that’s an argument.
This would, however, typically require developing expertise in a field, and then actually reading and understanding the thing being accused of being obtuse and verbose.
If you can demonstrate that you can do that for any arbitrary paper in a field, then sure, you'll convince me that its practitioners are long-winded gasbags.
What do they have to say? What is their argument? Why is a behavioral economist’s opinion relevant in a discussion about academic philosophy? Etc.
“Academic philosophy is obscure on purpose and X two people say so.” is not an argument.
- https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/how-ai-will-revolution...
- https://philpapers.org/rec/ELSHAS (via Sci-Hub)
You haven’t produced any summary of an argument, or even a real link to one justifying the claim that all academic philosophy is obscure on purpose, in any of your comments.
Instead you’ve linked to a blog post about AI and academic publishing; and a paper from 15 years ago that says social sciences and humanities are plagued by a problem with obscurity.
This isn’t how actual philosophical debate works. But it’s a perfect example of how LW is not a serious intellectual community.