Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

In Memoriam: David L. Hull (1935-2010)

A leading figure in philosophy of biology, Professor Hull passed away yesterday morning.   He taught for many years at Northwestern University, and before that at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.  I will post links to memorial notices as they appear.

UPDATE:  An obituary from the Chicago Sun-Times.  In addition, Arizona State is housing Professor Hull's papers.  (Thanks to Brad Wray for these links).   A remembrance from a former student, John Wilkins, here, who also has an informative commentary on his philosophical work.

ANOTHER:   Northwestern's memorial notice.

Thoughts on Overall and Specialty Rankings in the PGR

So with about 1100 votes cast, the percentages continue to hold steady:  about 65% of respondents would like to have both overall rankings and rankings by specialty, while 35% would prefer that the PGR only collect the data for the specialty rankings.  Several readers have already sent me comments on the issue by e-mail, and I've encouraged them, and invite other readers, to share their reasoning on the issue in the comments section here.  Signed comments will be preferred, and comments will be moderated/edited for relevance and content.

Philosophers interested in empirical psychology...

...will want to keep an eye on this investigation of prominent moral and evolutionary psychologist Marc Hauser.

New Philosophers' Carnival is...

...here.

Should Departments Be Ranked Just by Specialty, Rather Than Also "Overall"?

This issue comes up periodically in discussion about the PGR.  Some philosophers suggest that the most useful part of the PGR is the rankings of programs by specialty and that it would be better to just collect reputational data on the specialties in lieu of the overall rankings.  These philosophers worry that the "overall" rankings are too much hostage to the distribution of specialties among the evaluators (though, with a few exceptions [such as philosophers of language and those working in 20th-century Continental, specialization does not appear to explain much of the variance in overall evaluations].   Others point out, however, that some areas are viewed in the professional as more central to the excellence of a program, and so "overall" rankings serve an important purpose as well (especially for a student who is admitted to different PhD programs strong in his or her specialized area of interest).

So I am curious what readers think:  should we retain the status quo (i.e., a ranking of both "overall" quality and strength in specialization) or should the PGR only collect data on strength in areas of specialization?   After the results of the poll are in, I'll invite a discussion.  Ultimately, the issue will be decided by the Advisory Board.

Should the PGR Produce BOTH specialty and "overall" rankings or just specialty rankings?
	BOTH specialy and "overall" rankings
	ONLY specialty rankings, drop the "overall" rankings
View Results

Free poll from Free Website Polls

UPDATE 8/10:  So after about 20 hours, and with nearly 900 votes cast, it's been holding steady at 65/35:  that is, 65% favoring BOTH rankings, while 35% favoring just specialty rankings, and dropping the overall rankings.  I'll run a thread tomorrow for discussion of the issue.

Blame it on the consequentialists...

...why not?  But do see Clayton Littlejohn's reply.

(Thanks to Matt Burstein for the pointer.)

Ranking Journals: What is This Guy Talking About?

A few weeks back, several readers flagged this curious piece by an English professor at the University of Houston-Victoria, who also apparently teaches philosophy there.  Professor Piccinini comments.

UPDATE:  Here's an effort to rank philosophy of science journals using citation analysis.

If you want to understand Derrida, you'll have to read SEIN UND ZEIT

This is funny.

Affirmative Action: Diversity vs. Compensatory Justice?

That's the issue raised, I take it, in this opinion piece by Senator Webb of Virginia, a white quasi-populist Democrat.  He ignores the possibility that affirmative action may sometimes operate as a remedy, or prophylactic, against current, conscious or unconscious discrimination.  But putting that to one side, it is interesting that the compensatory justice rationale for affirmative action (to compensate the victims of de jure and de facto discrimination, including the descendants of those victims) which loomed large in the 1960s and 1970s has, ever since the Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Bakke, given way to the "diversity" rationale, one that always seemed to me far less compelling and plausible.  In any case, what do readers think about the issues raised by Webb's piece?  Signed comments will be strongly preferred, but any submitted comment must have a valid e-mail address.   Comments will be moderated and/or edited for substance and relevance.

More Relevant Philosophy...

...though its "impact" on U.S. policy one can predict, with confidence, will be non-existent.

(Thanks to Denis Robinson for the pointer.)

UPDATE:  Mea culpa--I didn't read the whole item, I had assumed from the recommendation (which I may have also misconstrued) and the opening that it was serious and appreciative, not sarcastic and anti-intellectual, as several readers have now pointed out.  So apologies for wasting everyone's time with a misleading link.

More Funny Philosophy Songs

Here (godless) and here (godly).

(Thanks to Keith DeRose for the first, and John Mizzoni for the second.)

Should Journals Get Rid of "Revise and Resubmit"?

A philosopher writes:

I think that journals should no longer give revise-and-resubmits. All decisions should be either accept or reject. A journal can certainly send an acceptance that reads "we are pleased to accept your paper, and ask that you will consider the attached referees' comments as you prepare the final version for publication." Likewise, I think that rejections should always include at least *some* comments from the referees. The reasons are twofold: (1) it will speed up refereeing and decision making. Referees and editors never have to look at revised papers, thus freeing up time to read new submissions. (2) authors will not waste their time trying to satisfy referees who gave an R&R, only to have the journal eventually reject the paper.

 

This last just happened to me-- a very prominent journal gave me an R&R, writing " we find the paper a promising one, and we hope that you will be willing to revise it... we would not be inviting resubmission this strongly if we were not optimistic about finding a subsequent version acceptable for publication." They enclosed two reader's reports with minor suggestions. The journal then sent my revised paper to two entirely new referees, one of whom didn't like it. After two rounds of revisions--bloating my paper with attempts to satisfy the one critical

ref-- the piece was rejected. I have heard many similar stories from others. No one wins in this scenario, and I can't see that it contributes either to the pursuit of truth or to the efficient functioning of our profession. R&Rs ought to be abolished.

 

Thoughts from readers?  All comments must include a valid e-mail address, which will not appear.  References to specific journals must include a full name in the signature line.

The next time somone asks, "Why did you decide to go to graduate school in philosophy?"...

...just explain it was either that or becoming an expert in annoying monkeys (warning:  don't tell your kids this is an actual job).

(Thanks to Scott Shapiro for a pointer.)

Brace yourselves for withdrawal!

I'm sad to report that the Robert Paul Wolff memoirs have reached their conclusion (i.e., they made it to the present!

"Epistemic Egalitarianism"

This is an astute observation by a co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, who, to his credit, bailed as the whole thing went down hill (and who also has a PhD in philosophy):

Wikipedia has very few practical constraints about people behaving according to normal rules of politeness and fair dealing. They've got a zillion rules, of course—that's part of the problem—but there is no easy way to reign in the bad actors. And unfortunately the bad tend to drive out the good. A lot of the more sane, sensible people out there are just can't take too much of it....

The other problem was that there needed to be some sort of mechanism—it didn't have to be anything like editorships or review before publishing or anything like that—but some sort of low-key role for experts in the system....

There was this attitude that experts should be disqualified [from participating] by the very fact that they had published on the subject—that because they had published, they were therefore biased. That frustrated me very much, to see that happening over and over again: experts essentially being driven away by people who didn't have any respect for those who make it their lives' work to know things....

There's a whole worldview that's shared by many programmers—although not all of them, of course—and by many young intellectuals that I characterize as "epistemic egalitarianism." They're greatly offended by the idea that anyone might be regarded as more reliable on a given topic than everyone else. They feel that for everything to be as fair as possible and equal as possible, the only thing that ought to matter is the content [of a claim] itself, not its source.

We've touched on this before in connection with Wikipedia.

Lee from Ohio State to Seoul National

Sukjae Lee (early modern philosophy), Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ohio State University, has accepted appointment as Associate Professor of Philosophy at Seoul National University, beginning this month.

"close-minded, dull-witted or both"

That is this under-educated gentleman's ironic opinion about those who can't tell the difference between giving money to promote the teaching of Ayn Rand versus giving money to promote the teaching of L. Ron Hubbard.  (It is in reaction to the piece linked here.)   Mill on freedom of expression refuted again!

UPDATE:  I stand corrected:  philosopher Steve Hales (Bloomsburg) writes:  "There *is* a difference between Rand and Hubbard: Hubbard was a fraud. Rand wasn't a fraud, she was merely a hack. An amateur hack at that."

Anglophone "Left" Political Philosophy

Via Chris Bertram (Bristol), I learn of this interesting interview with Stuart White (Oxford), which seems an adept summary of some central themes of academic political philosophy in the English-speaking world over the past half-century, more or less.