This has been the argument. It's increasingly total nonsense. It wasn't when Humbolt articulated it... But nearly all the concerns Weber raised about it have been realized. Firstly, the massive overproduction of research product doesn't increase knowledge. It's mostly unread, of questionable quality, and unvetted. This has been a growing problem. Second, research centricity has overemphasized specialization, leading to disconnection between the narrow set of questions they focus on. But, good teaching (and practical relevance) is built ona solid understanding of holistic connection between ones area of knowkedge and other areas of knowledge. Third, indeed, research centricity encourages even hyperspecialization within fields in order to quickly move to production in a literature. Most PhDs don't even know their own discipline very well beyond their specialization anymore. Fourth, all the benefits of research for teaching don't actually require engaging in any of the massive publishing infrastructure and output. We know this because that has only existed in the last 60 years or so. All the great PhD research from before recently was vastly sparser and not subjected to the intensity of today. But that process now is the majority of an acwdemic's activity and the entirety of their career focus. Consequently, the core hypothesis one might derive from your statement is almost never born out: the best researchers are almost never the best teachers. Indeed, it is usually the reverse today. That being said... The activity of research and scholarship that contributes to teaching are identical. Research isn't pathological. It's centricity is...

JD was absolutely looking strong in 2024... a Trump interpreter that could hold his own with journalists and come off looking good to those aware of the media spin. Articulate based answers that appeal to those that know what he is talking about. The 'Cat Lady' debacle was only a debacle with people who don't hate HR. But since..., it seems like every quarter his political instincts get worse, his presentation less charismatic, and his message and political identity more incoherent. He claims to lead a conservative post-liberal faction, but is in bed with Peter Thiel who's grindset message is antithetical to all the sensibilities of post-liberals other than in being illiberal. He can't seem to say things about AI that don't make everyone upset. Meanwhile, Marco Rubio seems to be going in exactly the opposite direction.... from a politically floundering insecure incoherence machine to a strident confident politician telling folks to 'grow up' and being more or less right about it. Politics really is something.

The Humanities/social sciences have collapsed in one of two ways (1) The way discussed here. Ideological/theraputic goals as end. (2) Methodological/Productivity as end. If you can't reasonable discuss real value beyond ideologically inflected emotivism or proceduralism, you kind of lose the substance of the social sciences. I think you can easily categorize every field by a proportinate falling into either of these. Political science and Economics are far more in thrall to (2) with (1) present somewhat. Sociology and Psych are a blend. More humanities oriented fields and Anthro more (1)... by and large.

I have not found this to be so. Indeed, what I have found is much worse. The rhetoric and intellectual assertions of moral and cultural relativism prevail in the same minds that are similarly marked and committed to moral dogmatism and cultural orthodoxy. Students too, would say they believe in cultural relativism, while also adhering to moral dogmatism and cultural orthodoxy.