Here’s a useful heuristic whose name isn’t widely known: the principle of stylistic consistency. As Drexler writes,[1]
In judging people and bodies of work, one can use stylistic consistency as a rule of thumb, and start by checking the statements in one’s field. The mere presence of correct material means little: it proves only that the author can read and paraphrase standard works. In contrast, a pattern of clearcut, major errors is important evidence: it shows a sloppy thinking style which may well flow through the author’s work in many fields, from physics, to biology, to computation, to policy. A body of surprising but sound results may mean something, but in a new field lacking standard journals, it could merely represent plagiarism. More generally, one can watch for signs of intellectual care, such as the qualification of conclusions, the noting of open questions, the dear demarcation of speculation, and the presence of prior review.
The heuristic has been endorsed by some eminent thinkers.
When I was young, most teachers of philosophy in British and American universities were Hegelians, so that, until I read Hegel, I supposed there must be some truth to his system; I was cured, however, by discovering that everything he said on the philosophy of mathematics was plain nonsense.
Sir, it is not unreasonable; for when people see a man absurd in what they understand, they may conclude the same of him in what they do not understand. If a physician were to take to eating of horse-flesh, nobody would employ him; though one may eat horse-flesh, and be a very skilful physician.
Here’s a useful heuristic whose name isn’t widely known: the principle of stylistic consistency. As Drexler writes,[1]
The heuristic has been endorsed by some eminent thinkers.
Lord Russell:[2]
Dr Johnson:[3]
Eric Drexler, ‘Abrupt Change, Nonsense, Nobels, and Other Topics’, Foresight Institute, 1987.
Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, New York, 1950, chap. 1
Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, London, 1791