Talk:One-Dimensional Man

Response Section
It looks like someone used this page to do some socialist-bashing. Stephen Hicks' credibility is certainly not thoroughly established, and a quick look at his website reveals links to the Heritage Foundation. The response itself is also too general to be included in this article, not to mention the fact that it's a gross over-simplification of how socialism had changed since the 1800s. This book is hugely influential and many have written about it, there should be some commentary out there that's more relevant and credible.--Dalarocca (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears several people are in agreement that the relevance and the credibility of the source for responses is in question. Having read this book I believe this response is also a straw man argument against Marcuse. I am removing the section. (Glamajamma (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

I don't see how Stephen Hicks' connection to the Heritage Foundation makes him suspect. He is a scholar and might be of a conservative persuasion, but I don't think that the Left has a monopoly on credibility. It's not our job to decide which institutions are "legitimate" and which are "illegimate." I would consider somebody to be a reliable source if they are a scholar in good standing, meaning they haven't been discredited through fraudalent scholarship or other misconduct. It is not legitimate in a republic where there is freedom of thought and freedom of speech for some to decide which views are correct or incorrect. The criteria for legitimacy when it comes to academics is not whether we agree with their philosophy. NapoleonX (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Unequal Balance
Nearly 1/3 of the article is the response section. The response section is based off of one person's opinion. Someone should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.42.222 (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could add the critic response of my neighbor too? - Just being cynical - Mr.Nobody 09:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.19.18 (talk)

Introduction
The use of the past-tense in the introduction ("argued," "created," etc.) seems to suggest that One Dimensional Man was intended to be more of a current-events work than a description of society which would remain relevant.

While it would be accurate to say that certain aspects no longer apply to the world after the end of the Cold War, the fundamental premises of the book remain very much applicable to the contemporary world.

If nobody has any objections, I'm going to change the wording to the present-tense.

--Apjohns54 (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hicks book
I regard this book as an unreliable source for two reasons. First, the couple academic reviews I could find were quite critical of the book's reliability. Here is Marcus Verhaegh writing at The Independent Review:

"Alas, the fingerprints Hicks discovers seem to be somewhat blurred. Kant and Hegel both appear drawn in caricature. ... [S]tudents with little knowledge of modern philosophy who are likely to be swayed by Hicks’s readings of key modern figures are decidedly not a proper audience for this work, except outside the context of a classroom setting where Hicks’s views can be challenged in an informed fashion. His reading of Kant, Hegel, and others sacrifices too much in depth for a simple, “on message” presentation. The best audience for this work would be undergraduates in an appropriate classroom setting and those likely to be skeptical of or decidedly in disagreement with Hicks’s reading of Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and others, but who may benefit from the articulation of opposition to contemporary leftist strategies and tactics that Hicks presents from a libertarian perspective (with definite Objectivist shadings)."

And here is Edvard Lorkovic writing in Philosophy in Review:

"[A]lthough it accuses (rightly I think) postmodernism of being too polemical, Hicks' text is itself an extended polemic. Instead of disproving postmodernism, Hicks dismisses it; instead of taking postmodernism seriously and analyzing it carefully on its terms, Hicks oversimplifies and trivializes it, seemingly in order to justify his own prejudice against postmodernism. If postmodernism is in fact untenable, which it very well might be, Stephen Hicks has unfortunately not demonstrated that."

Second, the book seems to stand up poorly to the standard at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For one, as both reviews indicate, Hicks is apparently advancing a novel argument rather than summarizing the findings of the scholarship; it's closer to a primary source than to a secondary source. For two, as far as I can tell the publisher, Scholargy Publishing, is not a traditional academic publishing outlet with peer review. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Many books get negative reviews. In fact, probably most books that deal with a controversial topic are going to get negative reviews from someone, because if you write about a controversial topic it is almost inevitable that someone is not going to like what you have to say. So those reviews are basically irrelevant, and it is tendentious to suggest that they show that the book is not a reliable source. Your personal negative impression of the book is also not relevant, Lord Mondegreen. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't just that the book has some negative reviews, the issue is that the book isn't widely reviewed, and the few academic reviews I could find are strongly critical of its reliability. As to my "personal negative impression of the book," I've nowhere referred to my personal impression of the book. Instead, referred to the book's accuracy as judged by scholarly reviews, its status as a primary source, and its lack of peer review. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * " the book seems to stand up poorly to the standard at WP:SCHOLARSHIP", you said. Looks like your personal impression of the book to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Come on, this is word play, not a substantive response. If it makes you happy, imagine I said "The book stands up poorly to the standard at WP:SCHOLARSHIP." Lord Mondegreen (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you believe the source is not reliable and should be removed for that reason, it is up to you to establish consensus for that. You may wish to try discussing the matter at WP:RSN. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I misunderstand WP:BRD, but it seems to me that if you're going to point to a lack of consensus, there needs to be more to that lack of consensus than a mere refusal to discuss the matter. I've already laid out my reasons for thinking that the book is unreliable, and they've been met by 1) the suggestion that scholarly sources saying the book is unreliable don't count as significant evidence that it's unreliable, since there could in theory be sources saying the opposite; and 2) the suggestion that if I use the word "seems," what I say has no more significance than a report of my personal opinion, even if I support that opinion with specific evidence.


 * I'm happy to take this to WP:RSN if that's necessary, but I really don't see why it should be necessary. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two users disagreeing with each other is a lack of consensus. Trying to establish consensus on this talk page or at WP:RSN would be an appropriate response. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * RSN discussion: WP:RSN Lord Mondegreen (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: a third opinion was asked for because the attempt at discussion at RSN went nowhere. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds right, and thanks for the third opinion. But I think that the concerns I raised above apply in basically the same way to the question of weight. I.e., substantively the history of philosophy that Hicks gives is at odds with most scholarly accounts of the matter, and (so to speak) procedurally the book is not an entry in the scholarly literature, but rather was first published by what looks like a vanity press and in its second edition by literally Hicks' own company. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well i prepared a 3O and forgot to take this off the list while writing. So since I spent the time, I'm gonna post the opinion anyway.


 * My opinion is that this is RS, even though I have reservations.


 * More importantly, the whole argument that it’s not RS is self-defeating. If the work isn’t RS, then we are dealing with a self-published source, and it falls under the banner of WP:RSSELF. That policy is quite clear: we can use the material when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Hicks himself meets those criteria, so his book, even if self published, is acceptable.


 * But my opinion is that the book is RS by itself.


 * As far as the criticism that all the reviews are negative. Firstly, that’s not true from my reading. Putting the title of this book into Google Scholar with the word “review” get you reviews saying things like “is an excellent little volume… Hicks has solved the puzzle in fine style” and “The book has already received lavish praise from Reason Papers founding editor Tibor R. Machan and it is easy to see why” and “ Stephen Hicks provides a provocative account of why postmodernism has been the most vigorous intellectual movement of the late 20th century” and “Hicks’s account moves along at a brisk yet very readable pace, with much clarity of meaning even for those fairly new to the study of the Western traditions under study”. But more importantly, it’s rather irrelevant. A book can be widely condemned by academics and laypeople alike and still be academically sound and important. The works of Darwin, Freud, Kinsey and Lomborg all fall into that category. There’s no policy that says that a work has to be liked to be RS


 * I’m not convinced that the work fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP on the grounds that it’s a primary source. Without reading the work, it seems to be a synthesis that reviews postmodernism with an eye to how it influences thought. That’s not a primary source. A primary source would be, for example, if Hicks had had a group of people read 1-D Man and then measured their aggression levels. This doesn’t come close to that.


 * My reservations come primarily from the fact that this work doesn’t come from a recognised publishing house. So we have no way to know what, if any, editorial oversight or review was conducted. That’s a huge red flag that it’s not RS. However, that has to be counterbalanced against the fact that Hicks is a tenured professor at a recognised university and that university proudly advertises this book on Hicks’ staff webpage. So it’s not like this is some sort of side deal by Hicks.  Additionally, this work has entered mainstream academic discourse. A quick search reveals review and citations in a range of journals and books by reputable publshers including Macmillan, Routledge, Springer and various University presses.


 * Moreover, as noted above, if the work fails to meet RS because of the publisher, then it must be self-published, and can be used per WP:RSSELF. If it isn’t considered self-published then that means it’s published by a reputable publisher and hence meets RS.


 * My opinion is that it’s RS, although at the low end of the scale. My understanding is that it’s a work that reviews the history of postmodernism and the way that has been detrimental to “enlightened” thought. As such, it seem pertinent that it criticises 1-D Man as promoting irrational behaviour and violence. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)