Carrie Jenkins, Alan Soble, and the "chasm of crap"

Last summer, we noted the curious spectacle of an article on philosophy of love by Carrie Jenkins published in a peer-reviewed journal, Ergo, criticizing views attributed to the well-known philosopher of love Alan Soble, but basing those views on an unsigned document found on the internet (that turned out to be an undergraduate paper, one that was criticizing Alan Soble!).  (The journal, Ergo, did not discharge itself honorably in this matter.)  When I first learned of this, I tried e-mailing Prof. Soble, but did not hear from him at the time (I may not have used the correct e-mail address).  However, late last week, I did hear from Prof. Soble, who had discovered the various Internet discussions of the affair, including my own.  Prof. Soble kindly shared with me the original correspondence with Prof. Jenkins.   First, her e-mail to Prof. Soble regarding her "mistake":

 On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Carrie Jenkins <carrie@carriejenkins.net> wrote:

Dear Alan (if I may?)

Raja Halwani (copied here) has let me know that I misattributed a draft paper to you in my Ergo paper 'Modal Monogamy.'

I am so sorry for this. I can only imagine how frustrating and annoying it must be. I don't have any excuses to make in this email: I wanted to acknowledge the error, send my sincere apologies, and let you know that I am already in touch with the journal about issuing a correction. 

I have also posted on my blog about the mistake (as sometimes journal corrections go unnoticed, and I want to make sure people know).

Do let me know if there's anything else I can do. 

Best wishes,

Carrie

Professor Soble's rather amusing reply to Professor Jenkins follows:

In your  published essay I found:

Soble, Alan (unpublished manuscript) What Is Romantic Love? Retrieved from http://forums.catholic.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9934&d=1300009573 Accessed March 13, 2011.

Mistake Number 1: If indeed it is an unpublished article of mine (or anyone's), you have a duty to drop me (or someone) a note asking if you may refer to it or quote from it, as well as asking if a more recent version exists, with different lemmata. Can you spell "Chutzpah"?

Mistake Number 2:  You do cite my 1987 piece on love, properly, but why would a genuine Research-Scholar-Chair ignore my further and different take on exclusivity (and other themes) in my 1990 The Structure of Love? Why tie the stones of a superseded article around my neck? (Or anyone's.) At least mention that this guy that you are here picking apart may have had more reasonable views flowing through his brain. Do you teach "Straw Person" in logic or critical reasoning?

Mistake Number 3:  I fail to understand the stupidity involved in possessing that paper and then assuming, despite the absence of the name of
an author, that it was written by me (or anyone else). This  routine passes muster at Trinity? You know the dangers of the www/internet, yet you fall right into the chasm of crap. 

Think slowly, cautiously: As soon as you type it -- "Soble, Alan (unpublished internet manuscript)" -- doesn't a bit of humble conscience bleat in your ear, "oh, really?" And "why do I  bother to rely on a stinky 'net unpublished essay, anyway?"  (Even if the only other piece I, or anyone, wrote on love was the 1987.)

Mistake Number 4:  No, you may not presume to be on such terms with me that you may address me as "Alan." Who or what do you think you are, Dr. Professor Jenkins? Sheesh. More pomposity.

Mistake Number 5:  Failing to read my "Bad Apples: The Influence of Politics on Scholarship," Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29:3 (1999), pp. 354-88.

Mistake Number 6:  "I can only imagine how frustrating and annoying it must be."  Whence "frustrating"? Annoying, yes, but how have I been frustrated? You throw words around (thoughtlessly dash them off). And no, you have absolutely no idea, not a clue, about how annoying your sophomoric mistakes are, for me, in my mind.  Your power to imagine the experiences of others is profoundly limited, if not mauled, by your grandiose self-vision.

For those who have followed Professor Jenkins's shenanigans on-line over the last several years, it's quite clear Professor Soble "has her number," which might explain her self-pity meltdown in the wake of his response.  Below the fold, Prof. Soble's e-mail to me last week upon his discovery of this whole matter:

I have only recently discovered your blog reports on the errors made by Carrie Jenkins in relation to material not written by me. Funny.  I appreciate the time and energy (the latter of which you have always had tons -- that's admiration) you used defending me and scholarly standards against the laziness that now abounds and into which Jenkins fell (not without some help from herself).

One web site I found is a "page" that goes on and on about the "affair" (= a series of submissions by bloggers).  People have been discussing, since last summer and in a virtual sense behind my back, how I have been libeled [my word] by Jenkins. How did this ever start? I find the process mysterious.

Is it not odd that no one has asked me to provide my thoughts about "Jenkins-on-not-Soble"? For example, you wrote that "Soble was not at all happy about this misattribution." The link, however, does not take the reader to Soble's explanation of his "unhappiness," but only to a remark by Jenkins that Soble's "reaction" was "extremely angry."

Nowhere could I find, neither in your blog nor among any of the 'net-pieces posted by Jenkins, the content of that "angry" -- but nevertheless thoughtful, comprehensive, and coherent -- "reaction."  How could blogger- or Twitter-friends and supporters of Jenkins (rationally) console and comfort her, and shout that she should not be treated that way, if they have not seen the "angry reaction"? Maybe she has already sent it far and wide.

The message is the one and only email I sent to Jenkins.  I listed for her six mistakes that she made. Sure, it was "angry." But it was also a "learning moment" for Jenkins.

Instead of (as you say) "feeling sorry for herself on Twitter," she could have made copies of the list and passed them around as clues for improving scholarship. (Although, part of my point was that most of the list is obvious, and ignoring them was her mistake.) Should people be able to see the letter that she says made her feel crappy?

I was not satisfied by her apology or the apology I received from the journal; nor did I judge the journal's "correction" to be of any value. The journal did not seem to agree that the errors Jenkins made were serious.

Jenkins included one remark in her report "I Mess  Things Up" about which I'll say a few words: "I often feel like an imposter."

Here's a proposal: she feels like an imposter not because some "angry" words have coerced (vs. shamed?) her into feeling like an imposter, but because she is an imposter (in this case), or because she believes with good reason that she's an imposter -- at least a young scholar who did not learn, or was not taught, or decided to jettison -- but why? -- principles of scholarship.

Thanks for getting involved.  I didn't know that I was!

Alan Soble