Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Against the idea of a journal for controversial but anonymous articles

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY:  UPDATED

This piece makes some good points; an excerpt:

There are many ways of describing this new journal; a sanctum away from the pitchforks of the mob; a place of amnesty where ideas can flourish without fear or self-doubt; a thought experiment. But essentially, it is a safe space, one where authors do not have to deal with feedback or criticism from those at the sharp end of their “controversial” ideas. It is publishing without the responsibility that comes along with that. It is all the things the zeitgeist condemns: thin-skinned, elitist, coddled, unable to engage in the hustle and bustle of the marketplace of ideas. Safe spaces have their virtues, specifically in allowing those who feel marginalised to congregate and share their experiences. But a host of academics with access to platforms who specifically want to publish papers they know will elicit a strong response does not exactly smack of persecution.

(Thanks to Paul Russell for the pointer.)

UPDATE:   Philosopher Jeff McMahan (Oxford) asked me to share the letter he and the others editors sent to The Guardian regarding the preceding piece:

We are the editors of the Journal of Controversial Ideas, which was criticised by Nesrine Malik in The Guardian on 13 November.  We would like to correct her misrepresentations of our project.

At present there is no Journal of Controversial Ideas.  There are only our plans and intentions and a group of about 40 academics who have agreed to be on our editorial board.  These are the only facts there are about the journal.  Malik could have learned about them had she contacted one of us, as every other journalist we know of who has written or is writing about the journal has done.  Instead she attributed to us a set of aims of her own invention, principal among which is to create a ‘safe space’ in which, by ‘deliberately branding ideas as controversial’, our authors can ‘provoke, recoil at the response, abhor it as overreaction’.  Because our ‘thin-skinned, elitist, coddled’ authors ‘will be anonymous’, they can publish ‘without responsibility’ and with complete ‘freedom from consequence’.  Malik even endows us with an unidentified source of funding who will ensure that the journal will be governed by ‘market forces’.

Our aim in establishing the journal is only to enable academics – particularly younger, untenured, or otherwise vulnerable academics – to have the option of publishing under a pseudonym when they might otherwise be deterred from publishing by fear of death threats (which two of us have received in response to our writings.), threats to their families, or threats to their careers.  Pseudonymity is optional, not required.  Our intention is to publish only articles that give carefully developed reasons, arguments, and evidence in support of conclusions that some may find offensive or pernicious.  We will not publish work that is polemical, intentionally inflammatory, or ad hominem.  If Malik had looked at any of our own publications, she would have found that these aims and constraints have consistently guided our own writing.

The journal will have credibility only if its articles satisfy the highest standards of academic rigour.  The ideas in the articles must therefore pass an unusually meticulous review process.  We will invite objections to those ideas but seek to protect their authors.  The best way to respond to ideas one opposes is to refute them, not to suppress them through coercion or intimidation.

The journal will have no substantive commitments other than to academic freedom.  We have assembled an ideologically diverse board of editors.

We have no funding whatsoever, apart from what comes from our own pockets.  The journal will be open access and wholly non-profit.

Jeff McMahan, University of Oxford

Francesca Minerva, University of Ghent

Peter Singer, Princeton University and University of Melbourne

In Memoriam: Adolf Gruenbaum (1923-2018)

Philosopher Edouard Machery (Pitt HPS) shared the following with me:

The Center for Philosophy of Science and HPS report with great sadness that our colleague Adolf Gruenbaum died on November 15, 2018. Further information to follow in the coming days.

Grunbaum,(1923-2018) was a leading philosopher of physics and he is also famous for his criticism of psychoanalysis. He was hired by Pitt from Lehigh in 1960 and built the philosophy department and HPS. He created the Center for Philosophy of Science.  

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Gr%C3%BCnbaum

Grunbam was the one who made the Pitt Department into an international powerhouse, and also established its preeminent in philosophy of science.

The Zuckerberg hustle

Yup.  The state should confiscate his fortune and use it to meet human needs.  As noted before, I'm generous:  leave him ten million dollars.  And pay him an hourly wage, or even a salary, for whatever work he actually does at Facebook.

Clark from Edinburgh to Sussex

Andy Clark (philosophy of mind and cognitive science), who currently holds the Chair of Logic & Metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh (where he has taught for the last fourteen years), will become Professor of Philosophy and Informatics at the University of Sussex, with an affiliation with the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science, effective January 2019.  That's a big catch for Sussex, which will likely propel the PhD program into the UK top 15.  Edinburgh will likely drop out of the UK top five, but will probably remain in the UK top ten.

ADDENDUM:   Nick Treanor, Head of Philosophy at Edinburgh, writes:

We’re disappointed to see Andy move, of course, but he is a great friend of the department and we’re happy for him and for Sussex.

It may interest some of your readers to know that Edinburgh expects to appoint 12 permanent faculty over the next three years, three or four at chair (full professor) level, the others open rank between lecturer/senior lecturer/reader (roughly assistant/associate/advanced associate professor). This will be across a range of areas. We are also hiring a head of school this year, a senior professorial level appointment. Tenured and tenure-track faculty are welcome to contact me in confidence if they would be interested in knowing more. 

That many appointments, especially if (as one would expect) they are consistent with the department's current quality, may sustain Edinburgh's very high ranking in the UK.

User-editable spreadsheet listing philosophy jobs

Shaun Wallace, a PhD student in Computer Science at Brown University, asked me to share the following:

We at the Brown HCI research lab built a user-editable spreadsheet containing over 150 current Philosophy faculty job postings. We thought it might be useful for graduate students on the job hunt:

https://drafty.cs.brown.edu/ajobs/#!data?-?2~Philosophy

Anyone can freely edit basic columns; such as subfield, search chair information, deadlines, who is interviewing, etc…

Personal/Private Data: If you SIGN-UP to create an account, you will have access to additional columns to track your status and private notes for each position. Only you can see this information. ;)

Our hope is to expand this system across other fields to better support the broader academic job market. To help connect those on the job hunt to universities by leveraging the efforts of both parties to keep this dataset current and up-to-date. 

Not sure how necessary this is in the era of PhilJobs, but it promises to include some additional information.   Comments/thoughts from readers welcome.

Clifford Sosis talks to Barry Lam (Vassar)

Here.  An apt observation from the interview:

I think the future of philosophy is going to be one of wide inequality, mirroring the growing wealth inequality in the country. Institutions that are flooded with money will have vibrant research departments, with well-paid and comfortable philosophers who will be, as they always have been, leaders in their research areas, but who have very little incentive to be leaders in bringing more equity and accessibility to the field as a whole. Meanwhile, the places where 90% of college students get their education will have small or non-existent philosophy departments, with underpaid and overworked adjuncts teaching an uninspiring curriculum with multiple-choice tests, leading to even further declines in enrollment.

I think this is going to show up in research as well. With inequality you are going to get younger people and people trying to move up concentrating their attention on the work of those at the top, leaving very little room and attention for outsiders, innovators, cranks, or those in the bottom 90%. We're going to see large and increasingly pedantic literatures on a small set of topics at a time. This isn't new, it's the way philosophy has always been, but its going to be amplified. I think its great that top departments are getting even more money to make their departments bigger and better. But I'm about as convinced in trickle-down philosophy as I am in trickle-down economics.

"[L]arge and increasingly pedantic literatures on a small set of topics" would describe most of armchair metaphysics in the last quarter-century, although the phenomenon is certainly not confined to that currently "prestige" subfield.

"Interdisciplinary Visitor Grants" at the Northwestern Center for Fundamental Physics

http://cfp.physics.northwestern.edu/interdisciplinary-grants.htmlDue to Google's recent enforcement of "https" links, some readers may have trouble reaching the website advertised in the left-hand column aimed at philosophers of physics.  If you manually remove the "s" from "https" you should be able to get there.  Here is the link, which you might also copy and paste:

http://cfp.physics.northwestern.edu/interdisciplinary-grants.html

 

Reader mail

From a young philosopher in Europe:

Your blog and Gourmet Report have helped me a lot over the years. They guided my grad school applications and final decision and are probably a large part of why I'm employed today. I don't always agree with everything you say, but I applaud you for saying it and for using your position and power to defend some of the saner positions in the profession that many junior people feel too professionally vulnerable to voice.

I am grateful for such missives.  Thank you!

University of Reading, in accordance with a foolish U.K. law, "warns" students about an essay by politics professor

When last seen around here, the late Norman Geras was shilling for the criminal war of aggression against Iraq.  Prior to disgracing himself, he had been a politics professor at the University of Manchester and author of some decent articles on Marx and other topics in political theory.  But one of them has now garnered a "warning" to students at the University of Reading, who might be led down the road to terrorism by reading an article justifying political violence in some circumstances.

(Thanks to several readers for sending this along.)

A brief, "mind-expanding" interview with Andy Clark (Edinburgh)...

...at IAI news.

The ruling class vs. the rest

No surprises here, but good to have it set out plainly:

Most of the wealthiest US billionaires – who are much less visible and less reported on – more closely resemble Charles Koch. They are extremely conservative on economic issues. Obsessed with cutting taxes, especially estate taxes – which apply only to the wealthiest Americans. Opposed to government regulation of the environment or big banks. Unenthusiastic about government programs to help with jobs, incomes, healthcare, or retirement pensions – programs supported by large majorities of Americans. Tempted to cut deficits and shrink government by cutting or privatizing guaranteed social security benefits.

The obvious solution to this problem is massive state confiscation of wealth from these pernicious characters (I'm a nice guy, let them each keep $10 million).

 

On racist and sexist stereotypes found in the "great" philosophers

Julian Baggini makes sensible points here, although it's telling about the current Geist that this kind of essay even needs to be written.

(Thanks to David Ozonoff for the pointer.)

Blast from the past: these philosophers didn't take the "kindness" pledge

Back in 2014.

Green on Gardner on the "escapability" of law and the (alleged) "inescapability" of morality

Leslie Green and John Gardner are two of the best (maybe the two best) legal philosophers in the world active today; here Green critically considers some of Gardner's recent work.  Definitely worth reading for anyone interested in philosophy of law, broadly construed.

New "Journal of Controversial Ideas" to feature pseudonymous articles

Philosopher Jeff McMahan (Oxford) is among those involved with the project.  This is a predictable response to the right-wing crazy part of the media and Internet that specializes in targetting faculty with verboten ideas--although, alas, a similar, if less visible, set of thought police operate on the identity politics neoliberal left as well.  As someone who often expresses verboten thoughts across the political spectrum, I guess I'm inclined to think greater courage is needed on the part of authors, although there are no doubt cases where livelihoods may be at stake. and so the costs unreasonably high.

(Thanks to Brad Wray for the pointer.)

Tennessee's Mariam Thalos interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: The Open Mind, "Magic Potion," 1969

British psychedelic band active from the late 1960s into the early 1970s.  This song is very much of its moment!

 

Doe v. Kipnis, HarperCollins has settled

MOVING TO FRONT FROM NOVEMBER 3--UPDATED

I do not know any details about the settlement, except I have been told the Kipnis book will remain unchanged.  When we last heard about the case, it had survived a motion to dismiss on terms that seemed favorable to the plaintiff.  This outcome suggests discovery may have been less favorable to the plaintiff, but that is just a surmise based on limited evidence.  (Perhaps there was a substantial payout to the plaintiff for attorney fees or damages?)  If anyone has additional details, please e-mail me, preferably with a source (even if not a source that can be cited in public).

UPDATE:  I am told reliably that discovery was going well for the plaintiff, and that the settlement was unrelated to adverse developments during discovery.  Understand that 99% or more of cases settle, since trial is an ordeal for plaintiffs as well as defendants.  So it's quite plausible that other factors motivated settlement.

ANOTHER:  Laura Kipnis writes:  "In case there’s any confusion, Unwanted Advances remains in print and I stand by everything in the book."

Best 'general' journals of philosophy, 2018

636 votes in our latest poll, on the best "general" journals of philosophy (those that publish in multiple areas).  The "top 20" are bolded--beyond that the results are even less meaningful I expect.   Recall that The Monist was wrongly omitted from the poll, and might have made the top 20.  I suspect that among readers of this blog there is probably some bias in favor of on-line, open access journals, which might help Philosopher's Imprint and Ergo, although the former has performed strongly in these polls for many years now.   Comments are open for readers to identify other journals that should have been included or to otherwise comment on the results.   (Submit comments only once, they may take awhile to appear.)

1. Philosophical Review  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Mind  loses to Philosophical Review by 371–165

3. Nous  loses to Philosophical Review by 386–153, loses to Mind by 272–256

4. Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 397–133, loses to Nous by 326–206

5. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research  loses to Philosophical Review by 420–121, loses to Journal of Philosophy by 303–231

6. Australasian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 466–82, loses to Philosophy & Phenomenological Research by 433–115

7. Philosopher's Imprint  loses to Philosophical Review by 462–77, loses to Australasian Journal of Philosophy by 299–227

8. Philosophical Studies  loses to Philosophical Review by 476–72, loses to Philosopher's Imprint by 282–245

9. Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 475–59, loses to Philosophical Studies by 303–206

10. Analysis  loses to Philosophical Review by 489–62, loses to Philosophical Quarterly by 279–236

11. Synthese  loses to Philosophical Review by 499–60, loses to Analysis by 366–159

12. Canadian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 508–31, loses to Synthese by 311–191

13. Erkenntnis  loses to Philosophical Review by 501–45, loses to Canadian Journal of Philosophy by 253–216

14. American Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 502–30, loses to Erkenntnis by 253–218

15. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 513–23, loses to American Philosophical Quarterly by 233–195

16. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society  loses to Philosophical Review by 512–25, loses to Pacific Philosophical Quarterly by 247–213

17. Ergo  loses to Philosophical Review by 491–38, loses to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society by 246–217

18. European Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 491–47, loses to Ergo by 241–203

19. Journal of the American Philosophical Association  loses to Philosophical Review by 489–30, loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 244–199

20. Thought  loses to Philosophical Review by 511–15, loses to Journal of the American Philosophical Association by 226–193

21. Philosophical Perspectives  loses to Philosophical Review by 503–13, loses to Thought by 198–196

22. Inquiry  loses to Philosophical Review by 502–21, loses to Philosophical Perspectives by 192–178

23. Dialectica  loses to Philosophical Review by 504–25, loses to Inquiry by 206–171

24. Analytic Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 498–21, loses to Dialectica by 196–171

25. Ratio  loses to Philosophical Review by 505–17, loses to Analytic Philosophy by 186–184

26. Midwest Studies in Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 500–13, loses to Ratio by 198–163

27. Philosophical Issues  loses to Philosophical Review by 498–11, loses to Midwest Studies in Philosophy by 191–167

28. Philosophical Topics  loses to Philosophical Review by 499–5, loses to Philosophical Issues by 187–120

29. Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 499–9, loses to Philosophical Topics by 198–126

30. Southern Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 507–16, loses to Philosophy by 178–149

31. Metaphilosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 494–16, loses to Southern Journal of Philosophy by 175–147

32. Philosophia  loses to Philosophical Review by 504–5, loses to Metaphilosophy by 173–109

33. Res Philosophica  loses to Philosophical Review by 500–6, loses to Philosophia by 150–115

34. Review of Metaphysics  loses to Philosophical Review by 498–13, loses to Res Philosophica by 139–128

35. International Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 485–14, loses to Review of Metaphysics by 179–9

 

 

 

 

 

Hi-Phi Nation has been picked up by Slate

Congratulations to philosopher Barry Lam (Vassar), who created the program and made it a success.  (Professor Lam was a guest-blogger here back in 2017, writing about the show.)

Roger Scruton under fire in the UK...

...initially for arguably anti-semitic remarks in a speech in Hungary, and now for other charming remarks as well.   The full text of the speech in Hungary is here, and it reveals Scruton as an unabashed apologist for the fascist Orban, which seems to me far more concerning in someone fulfilling a government policy role than his other idiotic/offensive remarks.

(Thanks to Edouard Machery and David Zimmerman for pointers.)

Sanders Public Philosophy Awards for 2018 go to...

...Regina Rini (York U, Toronto) and Amia Srinivasan (Oxford).  Both nicely done essays, worth reading!

UPDATE:  It appears the new https protocols imposed by Google are making the link ineffective, so here's the relevant text about the award:

After going through 178 submissions, we are pleased to announce two winners and two honorable mentions for the 2018 Public Philosophy Award. One winner is for a previously unpublished piece, the other is for a previously published piece.

Winner (previously unpublished): Regina Rini. Title: “The Last Mortals.” (PDF)

Regina Rini is Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Moral and Social Cognition at York University.

Winner (previously published): Amia Srinivasan. Title: “The Right to Sex,” from London Review of Books. 22 March, 2018 (PDF)

Amia Srinivasan is Associate professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford, and a tutorial fellow at St John’s College.

The best "generalist" philosophy journals: a new poll

MOVING TO FRONT FROM NOVEMBER 6--POLL CLOSES TOMORROW

35 choices of Anglophone journals that publish in multiple areas of philosophy (e.g., philosophy of language and mind, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, ethics, political philosophy, history of philosophy:  all these journals publish in many, but not necessarily all, of these areas).  Have fun!

UPDATE:  Alas, I realize I omitted The Monist, which didn't make the top 20 last time, but still, should have been part of this poll.   Let me also mention, again, that the more journals you rank, the more impact your vote has.  Simply picking your 2 or 3 favorites will have little effects on the final results.

ADDENDUM:  I will eliminate journals from the final results if there is evidence in the detailed breakdown of votes of strategic voting.   That wasn't the case for Ethical Theory and Moral Practice in the last poll, but there is one journal where that concern is arising in the current poll.  (Also, if anyone sees efforts on social media to mobilize votes for particular journals, please let me know:  I will eliminate those journals as well from the results.)

Here we go again: prominent BBC host set to speak at Oxford until her verboten thoughts are revealed

What is going on in the UK?  It comes complete with this typical, melodramatic falsehood:

A statement said: "The decision to offer her a platform is not apolitical or neutral, especially when her views cause tangible harm to vulnerable members of our society."

The thing about "tangible harms" is that they're tangible:  so let someone identify a single one of them.   But of course no one can, because this is nonsense.  I hereby quote myself:

[T]he pressure to violate academic freedom [also] comes from within the universities too.   Indeed, some humanists have concocted a whole new metaphysics of “silencing” and “marginalizing” and “violence” to describe the expression of ideas that are offensive and insulting to certain minority groups.  For these academic insiders, Marcusian “indiscriminate” toleration in academic discourse is not acceptable, since the expression of ideas that might be hurtful to individuals based on group membership—in particular, membership in groups that have been victims of historical practices of subordination (e.g., African-Americans in the United States, though more recently, transgender individuals)—is alleged to “silence” members of that group and do “violence” to them.    

Marcuse himself wanted to suppress speech advocating for actual violence against and silencing of human beings:  murdering their political leaders, dropping chemical bombs on their country, destroying their society and livelihood through military violence.    But neoliberalism—the idea that the preferences of the consumers of products, including education, determine the value of what is offered—now rules in the capitalist universities too, with the result that some self-styled “progressive” faculty and students--even in institutions of higher education that protect expressive rights quite resolutely--believe that denigrating and offensive ideas “silence,” “marginalize” and “do violence” to them.   (Ironically, one need only watch videos, easily available on-line, of minority students challenging and ridiculing the pathetic NeoNazi Richard Spencer on various campuses to realize that no one was “silenced” and no one suffered actual “violence.”)  In both research and teaching in the human sciences, such metaphysical flights of fancy deserve no consideration at any university committed to academic freedom.

An interview with Chomsky in Scientific American

Here; some excerpts, one from the start of the interview, the others a bit later on:

Do you ever chill out?

Would rather skip personal matters....

Do you take seriously the Singularity, the idea that artificial intelligence and other fields will soon radically transform humanity?

One can certainly imagine how, in principle, systems that can detect patterns with massive data processing might find hitherto unknown ways of constructing theories that surpass those within the reach of human intelligence.  And that could have all sorts of effects.  But among the concerns we face, this doesn’t seem to me to rank high.  Even tasks mastered almost reflexively by infants are far beyond the capacities of contemporary AI....

"Scott Walker was a national disgrace"

Now that's to the point!

Republicans voters are in the minority in the U.S.

Example 1:  "Voters cast 44.7 million votes for Democratic Senate candidates and 32.9 million votes for Republican Senate candidates — in other words 57 percent of Senate votes went for Democrats. But given how states and cities and stuff work, and which of the former happened to be up for election this year, this gap translated into at least a two-seat gain for Republicans."

Example 2:  "Democrats apparently won the House 'popular vote' by 7%."

Scientific fraud watch: catching those who fake images

Interesting development.

(Thanks to Jonathan Eddison for the pointer.)

Your idiosyncratic 2018 midterm election post-mortem

The Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, despite the Republican gerrymandering advantage:  good.  The Repugs increased their margin in the Senate, by picking up Democratic seats in Florida (bad), North Dakota (not surprising), Indiana (disappointing), and Missouri (bad, that state has moved further to the right in the last twenty years), but they did forfeit Nevada (yeah!) to a rather lackluster Democrat, but a Democrat nonetheless.  (Her Republican opponent was Trump-endorsed.)  Many Governorships flipped to Democrats (7 in total), which will help with the 2020 round of gerrymandering.

Although RealClearPolitics is a right-leaning site (boo!), I like their way of listing election results since they highlight "pickups" very clearly.

Let's start with the state Governor races.  First, two bits of happy news:  that reactionary, union-busting moron Scott Walker lost to the Democratic challenger in Wisconsin--that means hope for labor and for universities in Wisconsin; and the Trump-endorsed immigrant-bashing lunatic Kris Kobach lost to a Democrat in the deep red state of Kansas.  (Illinois sent Repug Bruce Rauner back to his country club, as expected, and replaced him with a Democratic billionaire, which is better, but still indicative of the depths of pathology in these benighted states of America.)  Second, one very bad bit of news:   Andrew Gillum, an African-American who led in all the polls in Florida, lost to the Republican.  Since Florida is a big state, with lots of house seats, this is bad news vis-a-vis redistricting in 2020.  Third, bad news but with a silver lining:  an African-American woman in Georgia--a state rife with voter suppression efforts--performed consistently with the polls and appears to have lost by only 2 percentage points to the Republican--and this in the heart of the deep South! 

Moving now to the Senate, it was mostly bad news, as already noted, and not unexpected given the seats in play.  The 2020 map will favor the Democrats in the Senate, this one did not. Given the composition of the new Senate, impeaching Trump in the House will be particularly pointless, since there is no chance as things stand now of getting 2/3rds of the Senate to convict.  One notable fact:   the loathsome Ted Cruz beat his Democratic opponents by only 2.5 percentage points in the still-benighted-but-less-so state of Texas.  He is vulnerable.

Against the use of police informants

Philosopher Luke Hunt (Radford) comments.  (Interestingly, Professor Hunt is also a former FBI agent.)

Watching the midterm election results in America

I found this useful.  If the Repugs keep the House of Representatives that will be as shocking as Trump winning in 2016--and maybe even more frightening. 

Living among the Neo-Nazis in Eastern Germany

Wow.

Michelle Catalano talks to Clifford Sosis...

...as part of his What is it like to be a philosopher? series.  There's a lot of useful (and sobering) information for those exclusively interested in teaching philosophy.

Today in fascist rhetoric from the monster-child

He never disappoints.  If the Repugs aren't throttled tomorrow in the elections....

Typepad has upgraded the "security" of all its websites (including this blog)...

...meaning that the address is now:   https://leiterreports.typepad.com/.   If you know readers who had the site bookmarked at the old address (without the "s"), let them know please!

The best journals specializing in moral and/or political philosophy

So with over 310 votes in our last poll, here are the results (the top 20 are bolded):

1. Ethics  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Philosophy & Public Affairs  loses to Ethics by 201–60

3. Journal of Political Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 243–18, loses to Philosophy & Public Affairs by 217–41

4. Journal of Moral Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 253–13, loses to Journal of Political Philosophy by 147–77

5. Utilitas  loses to Ethics by 246–16, loses to Journal of Moral Philosophy by 131–104

6. Oxford Studies in Metaethics  loses to Ethics by 245–14, loses to Utilitas by 114–108

7. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 254–10, loses to Oxford Studies in Metaethics by 110–109

8. Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics  loses to Ethics by 249–13, loses to Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy by 121–97

9. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice  loses to Ethics by 250–21, loses to Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics by 118–116

10. Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 245–10, loses to Ethical Theory and Moral Practice by 129–95

11. Politics, Philosophy & Economics  loses to Ethics by 246–8, loses to Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy by 100–96

12. Economics & Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 236–14, loses to Politics, Philosophy & Economics by 109–72

13. Journal of Applied Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 245–15, loses to Economics & Philosophy by 99–88

14. Journal of Ethics  loses to Ethics by 249–13, loses to Journal of Applied Philosophy by 105–92

15. Social Theory & Practice  loses to Ethics by 249–13, loses to Journal of Ethics by 112–94

16. Social Philosophy & Policy  loses to Ethics by 246–9, loses to Social Theory & Practice by 109–72

17. Journal of Social Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 247–8, loses to Social Philosophy & Policy by 88–85

18. Journal of Value Inquiry  loses to Ethics by 249–12, loses to Journal of Social Philosophy by 96–87

19. Political Theory  loses to Ethics by 240–10, loses to Journal of Social Philosophy by 86–84

20. Public Affairs Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 242–12, loses to Political Theory by 101–73

21. Res Publica  loses to Ethics by 245–11, loses to Public Affairs Quarterly by 89–83

22. Bioethics  loses to Ethics by 233–14, loses to Res Publica by 88–80

23. American Journal of Bioethics  loses to Ethics by 230–14, loses to Bioethics by 83–55

24. Hastings Center Report  loses to Ethics by 229–9, loses to American Journal of Bioethics by 81–51

25. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal  loses to Ethics by 233–10, loses to Hastings Center Report by 64–57

A couple of observations of my own.   The top four are pretty solidly the top four:  each outperformed the next closest journal by a wide margin.  Special kudos to Robert Goodin (founding editor of J. of Polit Phil) and Thom Brooks (founding editor of J. of Moral Phil.) for establishing their journals' reputations so quickly and effectively.  Outside the top four, there is more clustering, with some effective ties.  I was astonished by the strong showing for Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, a journal I don't think I'd ever had occasion to look at--but it may be that it has a higher visibility in Europe, from which, as we know, many readers hail.  Given the number of important papers that have appeared over the years in Social Philosophy & Policy, I'm surprised it didn't land squarely in the top ten:  my guess is this has something to do with the fact that while the papers are ultimately peer-reviewed, it is an invitation-only journal.  Finally, it's striking that the journals specializing in bioethics do not seem to have a strong reputation, compared even to other "applied" journals; that is consistent with my own impression that bioethics is still viewed by many philosophers as a weak field.

Comments from readers?

Vote Antonio Delgado in New York Congressional District 19

It's not just that he's the Democrat, he also studied philosophy at Colgate University and did fabulously well, earning a Rhodes Scholarship.

Academia is not a cult, but certain segments of it are

You can guess which one this guy is writing about.

(Thanks to James O'Connor for the pointer.)

Is sex binary?

Philosopher Alex Byrne (MIT) comments.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Tin House, 'Endamus Finallmus,' 1971

We haven't featured this short-lived Florida hard rock/blues band in some time, but here's another fine number from their debut album:

 

As the liberal order declines, what's next?

Some provocative prognostications from the Vice-Chancellor of Ashoka University in India; some excerpts:

Here are some elements of the new constellation that will characterise the politics of more countries.

First, greater polarisation between Left and Right. The only object of consensus in global politics seems to be that relatively status-quoist centrist politics is anathema....

Second, the rise of majoritarianism. One of the challenging trends in world politics is the anxieties of dominant cultural majorities in most countries about their ability to maintain their hegemony. This issue is manifested in the debate over immigration. But this anxiety is more subtler and far reaching than that. It is borne of the thought that while multiculturalism recognised the rights of cultural minorities to maintain their culture, the majority culture is now either demographically under threat, or simply derided as hegemonic and oppressive....

Third, expect more attacks on intellectual and cultural life. Though politically not significant, culturally the assault on universities will grow. Universities across the world will be constructed as purveyors of ideas that above all are contemptuous of the ordinary sensibilities of the majority. They will be accused of a double sin: Conflation of reason with identity, and then privileging some identities at the expense of others. As a description, this charge may be exaggerated. But the expectation that universities return to becoming flagbearers for cultural nationalism against multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism will grow.

Fourth, there will be a rise in militarism. As the international environment moves to a more zero sum game, the pressures to modernise militaries will, of course, increase, possibly unleashing a new arms race. But there will be a subtle rehabilitation of militarism as an ideology — the idea that military style tactics might be needed to keep assorted real and imaginary internal threats to nations at bay will become more acceptable. Jair Bolsanaro in Brazil is the starkest example of this. But this temptation is lurking under the surface in many other countries....

There's several others in the full essay.

Blast from the past: Robert Paul Wolff on Harvard Philosophy in the 1950s

Back in 2010.

Which specialty journals publish the best work in moral and/or political philosophy

MOVING TO AGAIN--IF YOU WORK IN MORAL AND/OR POLITICAL, PLEASE VOTE

A new poll, just with specialty journals, including several that were wrongly omitted from the last, more general poll.  One reader who asked for a poll just with the specialty journals wanted something that promotion and tenure committees could point to.  If you work in moral and political philosophy, please vote!  And remember, the more journals you rank, the more impact your individual vote has.

The right-wing "incitement industry"

That's what it is.

NYU's Tim Maudlin interviewed at Scientific American

Entertaining read, with funny comments about Kuhn and Popper, among other topics.  With regard to his views about the free will debate, all one can say is, "Ignorance is bliss!"

The only worrisome form of vote fraud in the United States is the suppression of minority voters by Republicans

Full stop.   The rest is fantasy.   The only hope for this benighted country is that the young, racial and ethnic minorities, the non-religious, and women either won't vote for Republicans or hate them.  Those demographics might save America.

The philosophy of horror

Noel Carroll (CUNY Grad Center) comments.

New books in October

Authors and/or publishers kindly sent me these new books this month:

The Virtues:  Justice edited by Mark LeBar (Oxford University Press, 2018).

The Evil Within:  Why We Need Moral Philosophy by Diane Jeske (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages:  Science, Rationalism, and Religion by T.M. Rudavsky (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, Volume 3 edited by John Gardner, Leslie Green & Brian Leiter (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Law as Artifact edited by Luka Burazin, Kenneth Himma & Corrado Roversi (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Phenomenology in France:  A Philosophical and Theological Introduction by Steven DeLay (Routledge, 2019).

Pleasure:  A History edited by Lisa Shapiro (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Planning, Time, and Self-Governance:  Essays in Practical Rationality by Michael E. Bratman (Oxford University Press, 2018).

The Evolution of Moral Progress:  A Biocultural Theory by Allen Buchanan & Russell Powell (Oxford University Press, 2018).

What is Philosophy For? by Mary Midgley (Bloomsbury Academic, 2018).

Stoicism:  A Very Short Introduction by Brad Inwood (Oxford University Press, 2018).

How Fascism Works:  The Politics of US and THEM by Jason Stanley (Random House, 2018).

The Birth of Ethics:  Reconstructing the Role and Nature of Morality by Philip Pettit, edited by Kinch Hoekstra with Michael Tomasello (Oxford University Press, 2018).

APA members should also nominate Shane Wilkins for the positions mentioned below

Dr. Wilkins (reachable at wilkins-at-fordham-dot-edu) kindly gave permission to share the following; I hope one or more current APA members will also nominate him (today!), since those are apparently more effective than self-nominations:

I just nominated myself to serve on two APA committees: the Non-Academic Careers Committee and the Public Philosophy Committee. I would welcome your endorsement of my candidacy for either position when the election rolls around. What I would like to do is briefly introduce myself and my qualifications for these positions.

• PhD Philosophy 2018 from Fordham University. AOS Medieval Philosophy, Metaphysics. I’ve published papers in Synthese, the Journal of the APA, History of Philosophy Quarterly, and other reasonable, peer-reviewed venues. I have presented multiple papers on the main program of the APA.
• I continue to be an active researcher and publisher.
• I have held a number of paid positions as a philosopher: graduate teaching fellow, adjunct, postdoc. Pretty much everything except a tenure-track professor. I did a lot of that published research while teaching a 4/4 to make enough money to support my family while living in the Bronx.
• In June 2017, I decided to take a prestigious management training program with the Federal government. I’m currently a Management Analyst with the US Department of Agriculture. This program has given me an opportunity to build a diverse portfolio quite quickly.
• My duties have included a variety of data collection and analysis tasks, as well as operations research, software development, contract management, as well as budget formulation and execution.
• I also have some leadership experience in the non-profit through serving as a Precinct Chair with the Tarrant County Democratic Party in Texas. 

I have nominated myself for these positions because I believe the APA needs to focus its resources and efforts on promoting the goods of the discipline and its practitioners. That means working to articulate to the public as well as state and US lawmakers the importance of philosophy for our democracy. It also means working to help philosophers find careers that let them use their abilities for the public good while providing for themselves. That is why I have nominated myself for these two committees in particular.

• As a philosopher/civil servant I have practical experience using the knowledge, skills, and ability I cultivated as a researcher and writer to help leaders make impactful, data-driven decisions. Further, I will bring political savvy and at least some experience dealing with elected officials to the Public Philosophy Committee that will help the committee build bridges with state and Federal government.
• Further, as a ‘nobody' with an off-brand PhD who clawed and scratched his way through five years on the job market, I think I may be in a good position to help the Non-Academic Careers Committee create resources and disseminate information that will help job-seekers find rewarding, meaningful careers where their philosophical skills will be productive assets instead of just biographical curiosities.

As a member of either committee I would work to orient that committee’s agenda around the good of discipline and the membership and push the association to keep those committees agendas at the top of its priorities.

Allow me to mention one final qualification that I think is important. I have no personal or professional reason to curry favor with anyone at the APA. There is literally zero impact, good or bad, anyone associated with the APA could conceivably have on me, my family, or my career. Independence will allow my professional judgement to remain unclouded.

Want to write a computer science paper?

Now you can!  (Maybe computer science isn't a Wissenschaft?)

(Thanks to Joe Hatfield for the pointer.)