Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

"Roosevelt, Reagan, and the Sanders Moment"

At the Huffington Post; an excerpt:

What makes the surging presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont so unusual is that he is the first serious contender since Reagan's election in 1980 who really wants to change the fundamental terms of debate and of politics, to repudiate once and for all the Reagan consensus which, through Republican and Democratic Administrations, has now delivered us the America of 2016, one with massive economic inequality, crippled labor unions, and economic stagnation for most Americans.

Sanders embraces the old Roosevelt consensus with a vengeance, and echoes Roosevelt's own campaign against "government by organized money," a power which, as Roosevelt famously said in 1936, was "unanimous in their hatred" of him--to which Roosevelt famously replied: "I welcome their hatred." The Clintons, with their long track record of commitment to the Reagan consensus, could never be as bold as FDR, which explains, of course, why they too are beloved by "organized money" ; nor can Obama, with his only modest deviations from the Reagan consensus and his apparently personal incapacity for genuine conflict with the forces of "organized money" that dominate his own party (let alone the reactionary class warriors on the Republican Right).

UPDATE, 2/1:  Thanks to the readers who helped propel this to the "Front Page" of the Huffington Post this morning.  And I've asked them to fix the typo (48 years not 38!).

New books in January

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

What Can Philosophy Contribute to Ethics? by James Griffin (Oxford University Press, 2016).

Diagrammatic Immanence:  Category Theory and Philosophy by Rocco Gangle (Edinburgh University Press, 2016).

Binary Bullets:  The Ethics of Cyberwarfare edited by Fritz Allhoff, Adam Henschke & Bradley Strawser (Oxford University Press, 2016).

A Critical Introduction to Formal Epistemology by Darren Bradley (Bloomsbury, 2015).

Adam Smith:  His Life, Thought, and Legacy edited by Ryan Patrick Hanley (Princeton University Press, 2016).

Ontology Made Easy by Amie L. Thomasson (Oxford University press, 2016).

Plotinus Ennead V.1:  On the Three Primary Levels of Reality trans. with intro. & commentary by Eric D. Perl (Parmenides Publishing, 2015).

Birkbeck's Andrew Huddleston interviewed...

...at 3AM.  (At my Nietzsche blog, I discuss Huddelston's views about value anti-realism in Nietzsche, and he responds in the comments.)

Best Anglophone philosophers of language since 1945

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--MORE DISCUSSION WELCOME

With over 300 votes on our latest poll, here's the top 20:

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

2. W.V.O. Quine  loses to Saul Kripke by 141–74

3. H. Paul Grice  loses to Saul Kripke by 161–51, loses to W.V.O. Quine by 114–88

4. J.L. Austin  loses to Saul Kripke by 159–62, loses to H. Paul Grice by 104–91

5. Donald Davidson  loses to Saul Kripke by 168–50, loses to J.L. Austin by 104–101

6. David K. Lewis  loses to Saul Kripke by 160–42, loses to Donald Davidson by 104–90

7. Noam Chomsky  loses to Saul Kripke by 154–60, loses to David K. Lewis by 96–92

8. Hilary Putnam  loses to Saul Kripke by 174–41, loses to Noam Chomsky by 100–92

9. Rudolf Carnap  loses to Saul Kripke by 162–47, loses to Hilary Putnam by 100–86

10. David Kaplan  loses to Saul Kripke by 176–23, loses to Rudolf Carnap by 88–83

11. Michael Dummett  loses to Saul Kripke by 175–41, loses to David Kaplan by 89–82

12. P.F. (Peter) Strawson  loses to Saul Kripke by 179–37, loses to Michael Dummett by 96–77

13. Alfred Tarski  loses to Saul Kripke by 180–21, loses to P.F. (Peter) Strawson by 90–71

14. Tied: Gareth Evans  loses to Saul Kripke by 189–23, loses to Alfred Tarski by 80–75 Robert Stalnaker  loses to Saul Kripke by 183–16, loses to Alfred Tarski by 80–68

16. John Searle  loses to Saul Kripke by 193–17, loses to Gareth Evans by 87–76

17. Tyler Burge  loses to Saul Kripke by 192–12, loses to John Searle by 81–65

18. Keith Donnellan  loses to Saul Kripke by 192–10, loses to Tyler Burge by 68–57

19. Peter Geach  loses to Saul Kripke by 192–10, loses to Keith Donnellan by 62–57

20. Robert Brandom  loses to Saul Kripke by 178–32, loses to Peter Geach by 76–62

Just outside the top 20 were Ruth Marcus, John Perry, and Wilfrid Sellars.

The "top ten" living philosophers of language were Kripke, Chomsky, Putnam, Kaplan, Stalnaker, Searle, Burge, Brandom, John Perry, and Hans Kamp.

This poll had a somewhat larger number of errors of omission, including Dennis Stampe, Frank Veltman, Jeroen Groenendijk Martin Stokhof, Richard Montague, Max Cresswell, Irene Heim, Terence Parsons, Richard Heck, Jeff King, Robert Harnish, and Howard Wettstein.  I imagine one or two of these folks might have been competitive for the "top 20," but I welcome reader thoughts.  Wittgenstein was not an error of omission; he was left out on purpose given that he did not write in English; we know from earlier polls that he, in any case, tends to dominate all other philosophers of the past two hundred years.

Wolff on Krugman

Yes.

The best late 60s/early 70s rock 'n' roll album you've never heard of

Universe, 1971. 

 

 

A band from Wales, the album recorded in Norway.  If you hold my view (idiosyncratic and indefensible, but nonetheless true) that the best rock 'n' roll was recorded between 1967 and 1973 and, in particular, if you are a fan of Jethro Tull's early Stand Up album, you will dig this.

The crimes against the people of Flint, Michigan

If these allegations are accurate, the Governor and others should face criminal prosecution.

Third Summer School in Mathematical Philosophy for Women at Munich

The Summer School is now taking applications!  (Link now fixed, they had sent the wrong URL.)

(Thanks to Karolina Krzyżanowska for the pointer.)

What would *real* space aliens be like?

Philosopher Susan Schneider (U Conn) and an astronomer comment.

Donald Trump's ranting made much more entertaining...

...when dubbed in different British accents.

Who are the best Anglophone philosophers of language in the post WWII period?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JANUARY 27--THE POLL WILL CLOSE LATER TODAY

Following a suggestion after the last poll, I've changed the question from "most important" to 'best" (in your judgment).  Only Anglophone philosophers; among those who are still living, only those age 50 or older in 2016 are included.  Have fun!

TWO NOTES:   Alas, an omission already flagged for me:  Dennis Stampe.  In addition, while the description of the poll, above, is accurate, on the poll itself, it sounds as if the poll only includes living philosophers over 50, which it obviously does not!

ANOTHER:  Thony Gillies (Rutgers) points out another unfortunate omission, namely the Dutch philosophers/linguists/logicians Frank Veltman, Jeroen Groenendijk, and Martin Stokhof, whose work is in English.  Alas.

AND EVEN WORSE I got Hans Kamp on the list but forgot Richard Montague!  Well, folks can "discuss" that omission when the results are in.  I guess he might have made the "top 20," but I'm not enough of an insider to know.

AND SOME MORE NAMES:  Max Cresswell, Irene Heim, Terence Parsons, Richard Heck (I had thought Heck was not over 50, but am told that is wrong).

AND:  Jeff King (Rutgers) should have been on the list.  Another important philosopher of language betrayed by his youthful looks (turns out he is over 50).

TWO MORE:  Philosopher Jeff Helmreich (UC Irvine) mentions Robert Harnish (late of University of Arizona) and Howard Wettstein (UC Riverside).   I'm particularly embarrassed about Wettstein, whom I know and like very much--but I'd forgotten he began his career as a major contributor to debates about theories of direct reference.

Author of controversial Synthese papers responds at length...

...and equally unintelligibly (so much so that it's a bit amusing).  Translations welcome!  (Earlier coverage.)

Financial crisis at Finnish universities...

...including massive lay-offs at the University of Helsinki (including some academic staff).  More on what's going on in Finland here.  (Thanks to Dean Rowan for the pointers.)

Comments are open for more links and information from readers about the situation in Finland.

Greenwald on Krugman

This is funny, but Krugman's rhetoric is pathetic.

Synthese to put a hold for now on "special issues"...

...in the wake of the latest embarrassment.  Longtime readers will recall this isn't the first time a "special issue" led to embarrassment for the journal.  Synthese clearly publishes too many pages each year to maintain quality.  At least in this case, the editors have not humiliated all the other contributors.

From bad to worse in Turkey

A philosophy professor will be put on trial.  Note that under Turkish law, insulting the President is an actionable offense.  It is the law, and not necessarily its application in this instance, that is rotten.

UPDATE:   A philosopher in Turkey writes: "I think it might be worth pointing out that Orsan is an important part of Turkish philosophical community - being the person behind 'Philosophy in Assos'":   http://www.philosophyinassos.org/assos.htm.  These events are an important part of Turkish philosophical calendar. Ironically he was supposed to be giving lecture in Assos on 'Freedom, Justice and Courage' and I think this falls on the day they set for his Trial."

Philippa Foot once wondered whether anyone knew what a "reason for acting" was...

...but as philosopher Samuel Asarnow (Macalester) notes, pop songwriters seem to!

The latest on the battle over tenure in the University of Wisconsin System

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--MORE INFO FROM PROF. WHITE IN COMMENTS, PLUS OTHER COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS--MORE DISCUSSION WELCOME

Philosopher Alan White (Wisconsin/Manitowoc) has been involve throughout in the process of revising the Regental rules on tenure after the assault on tenure by Governor Walker and his Republican allies in the legislature.  The current proposed polices can be viewed here.  Prof. White kindly gave permission to share his letter to colleagues about the current draft:

1.  The faculty tenure document.

This document is the Regents' policy replacement for the statement of tenure formerly ensconced in Wisconsin state statute 36.13.  You may recall that the Regents immediately adopted the verbatim language of 36.13 as interim policy after the state removed it.  Except for the inclusion of the next to last entry "Oversight, Roles and Responsibilities"--needed, I suppose, to authorize administrators to do their jobs in carrying out Regents' policy--this document largely just copies 36.13.  So in letter and spirit, I'd say this just codifies what the Regents did last year with the interim action.  While that's good news, it's in fact limited by newly adopted state statute 36.21, modified to specify that termination may be for conditions ("certain budget or program changes")  that do not qualify as financial emergency--and deletes "financial emergency" from the old statute as the standard for layoff or termination.  An entirely new law, 36.22, details procedures for "layoff or termination of [a] faculty member due to certain budget or program changes."  So, in fact state statute has abandoned the AAUP gold standard of financial exigency as sufficient reason to terminate tenured faculty.

2.  The Procedures Relating to Financial Emergency or Program Discontinuance Requiring Faculty Layoff and Termination

The title of this document has at least some good news:  Regents' policy reinstates financial emergency as a standard of terminating tenured faculty, but note--only *a* standard.  That's because of 36.21-22 of course.  It has a couple of added statements referring to procedural protections for laid-off faculty set out in 36.22 and deleted a couple of definitions from the previous draft, but it looks very much like the one you saw prior to our final meeting.  There are some added passages that *appear* to afford extra protection.  For example, notice on page 5 F. there is a statement added:  "It is recognized that the chancellor should make a recommendation adverse to the faculty recommendation with respect to discontinuance of an academic program only for compelling reasons which should be stated in writing and in detail."  But please note this language is not a *requirement* but "recognized" as optimally the case.  "Should"s are not "Must"s.  At the very least we need to fight for language changes like that.

My suggestion if that if you are going to comment on this document, please read 36.21-22 as well.  I provided those in an earlier email.

3.  The Periodic Post-Tenure Review document

Despite my own protests--joined by Madison reps--this document is largely unchanged from the draft we had at the final meeting.  On page 3 point 12 following, we argued strenuously for including an extra step prior to what is described in 12. b., which essentially allows only an administrative reconsideration in the case of a negative review.  We argued for a second faculty review in the case of a negative review, just to ensure that the negative review was justified.  It's not included here.  I think we need to press for that.  In addition, I and other committee members argued that the time frame to asses remediation in the case of a negative review(12. c. ii)--18 months--was too brief to be realistic for some cases, and that it should be expanded.  The time frame is unchanged.  And of course page 4 16. is unchanged as well.  The only option for a faculty member terminated by this process is independent of UW grievance processes--filing a civil suit.

As goes Wisconsin--one of the country's best public university systems--so may the nation go.  This deserves everyone's attention, as well as everyone's thanks to Prof. White for his work on this.  Comments are open for further information, comments, links, etc.

On slippery slopes

A sensible statement by the chair of Amherst College's Board of Trustees, in the wake of the decision to rename the school's controversial mascot:

A statement issued by Cullen Murphy, chair of the college's board, said that while the college would prefer that people not use the Lord Jeff nickname or mascot, the college will take no action against those who -- as individuals -- do so. "The college has no business interfering with free expression, whether spoken or written or, for that matter, sung. Period," Murphy said. He added, "To those who argue that stepping back from Lord Jeff as an unofficial mascot takes us down some sort of slippery slope that calls into question the name of the town or the college, the board would respond that you can find slippery slopes anywhere you look, that real life isn’t a philosophy class or court of law, and that people long ago figured out the commonsense way to deal with slippery slopes: just draw the line. Amherst College will always be the name of the school."

UT Austin faculty member and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg will not permit guns in his classes

Good for him.  Undoubtedly this will be challenged in court, since the gun crazies have many lawyers at their disposal.  But civil disobedience is the right posture, and Weinberg can afford to do it, literally and symbolically.  (He and his wife, who is a law professor at UT Austin, earn over $800,000/year; they are also both senior enough that they could retire in protest.  And given that he rather clearly the most famous member of the faculty, with an international reputation, even some of the yahoos in the state legislature may be given pause about the ramifications of driving him off the faculty.)

APA Endorses Statement protesting Turkish persecution of academics

News release here.  I'm glad to see the APA join the other professional organizations that have spoken out about this, especially since a dozen or more philosophy faculty (including, as I understand it, some APA members) have been targeted in this campaign.

UPDATE:  Unfortunately, the statement by APA Board Chair Cheshire Calhoun (Arizona State) is not very good.  She is quoted in the press release as follows:

Cheshire Calhoun, chair of the board of officers, said, “It is extremely disturbing that Turkish academics have been subjected to severe governmental and university pressures, including detention and criminal investigations, for doing exactly what one might hope that any academic would do—protest the violation of basic rights protected by one’s country’s constitution and international conventions.”

But the Turkish government denies that anyone's basic rights are being violated, and that it is the rights of Turkish citizens which are under threat from Kurdish rebels.  Thus, this objection will be easy to dismiss as partisan ("Armenian lovers" is, I am told, the preferred term of abuse by Turkish nationalists).   The correct and relevant objection is to the persecution of academics for ordinary political speech, regardless of one's view of the merits of their position.  The message the Turkish government needs to get is that its university system will fall into worldwide disrepute if the government persists in persecuting faculty for their political speech, regardless of the merits of their position.

Virtual Dissertation Groups, again

Joshua Smart writes that another round is starting:

While advisors and committees are important, it can be incredibly helpful to discuss one’s work with peers in a lower-stakes environment, and it can be particularly enlightening to do so with those who take a different approach or have a different focus. Not only that, but there is evidence from psychological research that thinking about problems in relation to persons who are geographically distant can increase creativity. With students in programs from 8 countries and 20 different U.S. states, Virtual Dissertation Groups are a great (free!) way to capture some of these benefits.

The setup is simple: Students participate in three-membered groups, with one student each month sending a short-ish piece of writing to the other two for comments.

You can sign up to participate here. Open sign-ups go through Sunday, February 7th. (After that, spots cannot be guaranteed.)

I'm opening comments in case any who have participated in the past would like to comment on the experience, this might help other readers get a better sense of what it's like.

10 years of the "Routledge Philosophers" series

As the second ad from the top on the right sidebar notes, to celebrate ten years of books in the series, Routledge is offering a 10% discount on all volumes (code RPS15).  Steven Fesmire's Dewey was recently named a Choice outstanding academic title for 2015.  Other recent volumes have included Kenneth Baynes on Habermas, Albert Atkin on Peirce, Don Garrett on Hume, and the second edition of Jonathan Lear's volume on Freud.  (2nd editions of Kant by Paul Guyer, Husserl by David Woodruff Smith, and Aristotle by Christopher Shields have appeared in prior years.) 

Plato by Constance Meinwald is forthcoming soon; other volumes in preparation include Maudemarie Clark on Nietzsche, Chike Jeffers on Du Bois, Candace Vogler on Anscombe, Paul Muench on Kierkegaard, and Samantha Matherne on Cassirer, among others.  Check it out while the sale lasts (until February 29, 2016)!

"The Open Syllabus Project"

This is fun and maybe even useful; there's an explanation here.

(Thanks to Walter Effross for the pointer.)

The latest "shame" fest in philosophy cyberspace

It starts here, and continues here, and receives scathing commentary here.   For the life of me, I can't even figure out what the purportedly offending passage even means:  its English is barely intelligible.   Synthese should be embarrassed to have published this on the latter ground alone.  What do readers think of all this?

German Societies for Philosophy and for Analytic Philosophy issue public statement protesting Turkish persecution of academics for their political speech

The joint statement, delivered to the Turkish Embassy in Germany, is here:  Download Erklärung der DGPhil und GAP zum Vorgehen der Türkei gegen Hochschullehrer

Corey Robin on Sanders and Clinton

Lots of sensible stuff here, and much of it amusing too.  Krugman's anti-Sanders commentary, in particular, is a disgrace; the awfulness of Bush redeemed Krugman, but in the beginning he was a tiresome apologist for the status quo, and he's come back home to his true calling now that the 36th year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency may actually come to an end.

In Memoriam: Richard Levins (1930-2016)

Not a philosopher per se, but a philosophically minded biologist; as Michael Weisberg (Penn) wrote to me, "Along with Dick Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, he was one of the most influential evolutionary biologists on philosophers."  There's an obituary here.

On being a "shy introvert" in academic philosophy (or academia more generally!)

Philosopher Marcus Arvan (Tampa) has some sensible observations and suggestions.

Bonn Summer School on "The Heremeneutics of Suspicion"

I'll be one of the keynote speakers, giving an opening address on "The Epistemology of the Hermeneutics of Suspicion."  The Summer School is now accepting applications for spots.

Petition asking the APA to issue a statement of support of Emory's George Yancy

The petition is here.  Briefly:  Prof. Yancy wrote about racism at the New York Times blog, and has since been subjected to disgusting racist abuse and threats through e-mail and other social media.  I gather the APA is going to issue a statement of support.  I confess I'm not really sure what the point is here.  Every civilized person is appalled at the outbursts of racist, misogynistic and/or criminal abuse that follow any public statement that offends some segment of the deranged population.  Anyone who airs such views in cyberspace has been a victim of this kind of abuse, though the worst is typically reserved for women and minorities in my experience.  As I advised elsewhere, Prof. Yancy, like anyone else targeted by such garbage, should report criminal threats to law enforcement (I always do, and the University of Chicago police have often been helpful, usually in confirming that the threats are the idle malice of irrelevant cranks).   But I confess I'm at a loss as to the point of an APA statement on the matter:  the vile and often sociopathic people who send these hateful messages are not going to be at all affected by an APA statement, if they even learn of it.  There are many ways to express solidarity and sympathy with Prof. Yancy's predicament, quite apart from the APA statement.  Unlike the situation in Turkey, in which the state is the malevolent actor but also sensitive to reputational costs, it's just not clear to me what will be accomplished by an APA statement in this instance.   Since this is another issue pertaining to the role of the APA, I wonder what readers think?

Jennings v. Wallace, Part II

Following up on this, more amusement:

American Political Science Association protests persecution of Turkish academics over petition

The APSA's letter to the Turkish President is here.  Given that a number of philosophers have been targeted, I would hope the APA will come to life on this issue.  The Turkish government, I am told, may in fact be very sensitive to adverse international publicity in this case.

Oberlin's President respond to "non-negotiable demands" from Black students: No!

Good for him:

Marvin Krislov, the president, said that while some of the demands "resonate with me and many members of our community, including our trustees," he would not respond directly to the proposals from black students, which were termed non-negotiable.

"[S]ome of the solutions it proposes are deeply troubling," Krislov wrote in a response posted on Oberlin's website. "I will not respond directly to any document that explicitly rejects the notion of collaborative engagement. Many of its demands contravene principles of shared governance. And it contains personal attacks on a number of faculty and staff members who are dedicated and valued members of this community."

The 14-page list of demands at Oberlin was detailed and contained many controversial items. Among other things, it demanded the immediate firing of some Oberlin employees, the immediate tenuring of some faculty members, specific curricular changes, a review and possible revision of the grading system (to be overseen by students), the creation of "safe spaces" for black students in at least three buildings on campus, the creation of a program to enroll recently released prisoners from a nearby prison as undergraduates, divestment from Israel, and a requirement that black student leaders be paid $8.20 an hour for their organizing efforts.

The students also demanded changes at Oberlin's noted conservatory. For instance, the list of demands said that students should not be required to take "heavily based classical courses that have minimal relevance to their jazz interests." Stating that classical music students are not required to study jazz, the list of demands says that students of jazz "should not be forced to take courses rooted in whiteness."

 As we noted in December, the Oberlin student "demands" set a new low for their unreasonableness, demanding actions that were plainly illegal.  It's a oood thing the President drew a firm line on this nonsense.

APA awards grants to ten projects in 2015

MOVING TO FRONT--SOME INTERESTING DISCUSSION, BELOW, MORE WELCOME

The full list.  Although only two are listed under the heading "Diversity and Inclusiveness," four of the others arguably are in that category as well.  In dollar terms, $26,500 has gone to programs related to the racial and gender diversity of philosophy, while $18,187 has gone to other programs.  Apart from the grant to the very talented John Corvino to increase philosophy's YouTube presence, I see very little here that would address such issues as philosophy's presence in the broader culture, the dismal job market, and so on.  I wonder if anyone can clarify how these priorities were arrived at and what readers think about how the APA is spending the money collected in dues and from conference registrations?   I am not an APA member, so perhaps missed a vote by the APA membership on these issues.

(Thanks to Mike Morris at the APA for forwarding this information.)

According to "The National Jurist" magazine...

...I'm the 4th "most influential" person in American legal education.  Maybe, but who is the most influential in "philosophical education," that's what we all want to know.

Petition to President Obama about the Turkish assault on the Kurds...

...co-authored by philosopher Anna-Sara Malmgren (Stanford), and already signed by a number of other philosophers.  Of course, it was a petition on this subject in Turkey that led to the recent persecution of Turkish academics.

American Political Circus watch: Why Trump won't be President, and Sanders might

From a real professional data guru, Nate Silver; regarding Trump:

Most Americans just really don’t like the guy.

Contra Rupert Murdoch’s assertion about Trump having crossover appeal, Trump is extraordinarily unpopular with independent voters and Democrats. Gallup polling conducted over the past six weeks found Trump with a -27-percentage-point net favorability rating among independent voters, and a -70-point net rating among Democrats; both marks are easily the worst in the GOP field. (Trump also has less-than-spectacular favorable ratings among his fellow Republicans.)...

We’ve got an unpopular set of presidential candidates this year– Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party with a net-positive favorability rating — but Trump is the most unpopular of all. His favorability rating is 33 percent, as compared with an unfavorable rating of 58 percent, for a net rating of -25 percentage points. By comparison Hillary Clinton, whose favorability ratings are notoriously poor, has a 42 percent favorable rating against a 50 percent unfavorable rating, for a net of -8 points. Those are bad numbers, but nowhere near as bad as Trump’s.

This is not just a recent phenomenon; Trump’s favorability ratings have been consistently poor. It’s true that his favorability numbers improved quite a bit among Republicans once he began running for president. But those gains were almost exactly offset by declines among independents and Democrats. In fact, his overall favorability ratings have been just about unchanged since he began running for president in June.

UPDATE:  Speaking of those with an "unfavorable" view of Trump, this seems right.

20 "Most Important" Philosophers of Mind since WWII

So with not quite 340 votes in our latest poll, here's the top 20:

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

2. Daniel Dennett  loses to Jerry Fodor by 123–93

3. Hilary Putnam  loses to Jerry Fodor by 137–85, loses to Daniel Dennett by 117–110

4. David Chalmers  loses to Jerry Fodor by 143–92, loses to Hilary Putnam by 124–112

5. Donald Davidson  loses to Jerry Fodor by 141–72, loses to David Chalmers by 132–98

6. Gilbert Ryle  loses to Jerry Fodor by 157–69, loses to Donald Davidson by 103–100

7. Thomas Nagel  loses to Jerry Fodor by 153–65, loses to Gilbert Ryle by 108–101

8. John Searle  loses to Jerry Fodor by 162–56, loses to Thomas Nagel by 109–95

9. Ned Block  loses to Jerry Fodor by 167–44, loses to John Searle by 113–93

10. Noam Chomsky  loses to Jerry Fodor by 156–55, loses to Ned Block by 102–99

11. David K. Lewis  loses to Jerry Fodor by 160–47, loses to Noam Chomsky by 101–93

12. Fred Dretske  loses to Jerry Fodor by 171–37, loses to David K. Lewis by 95–90

13. Jaegwon Kim  loses to Jerry Fodor by 170–39, loses to Fred Dretske by 92–84

14. Frank Jackson  loses to Jerry Fodor by 171–36, loses to Jaegwon Kim by 91–82

15. Tyler Burge  loses to Jerry Fodor by 173–36, loses to Frank Jackson by 90–86

16. David Armstrong  loses to Jerry Fodor by 171–36, loses to Tyler Burge by 93–75

17. Paul Churchland  loses to Jerry Fodor by 181–30, loses to David Armstrong by 88–85

18. Wilfrid Sellars  loses to Jerry Fodor by 172–37, loses to Paul Churchland by 93–83

19. G.E.M. Anscombe  loses to Jerry Fodor by 166–48, loses to Wilfrid Sellars by 93–75

20. Patricia Churchland  loses to Jerry Fodor by 179–34, loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 99–93

The top ten still living philosophers of mind from this poll are Fodor, Dennett, Putnam, Chalmers, Nagel, Searle, Block, Chomsky, Kim, and Jackson, and Burge.

I confess to being surprised that Ruth Millikan and Stephen Stich were not in the "top 20," they were just a bit outside.  I would not have expected such a strong showing for Ryle, whose views, I thought, had aged badly.  

Thoughts from readers about what this reveals about the sociology of the profession and/or the philosophical interst of the results?

Most important Anglophone philosophers of mind since WWII?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JANUARY 17--THE POLL WILL RUN FOR ABOUT ANOTHER 24 HOURS

Here's a new poll for your amusement.  I used age 50 as the cut-off for living philosophers of mind.  I checked various sources, including SEP, to make sure I had a reasonably complete list.  There is obviously some line-drawing between philosophy of mind and language, and I realize not all the choices are obvious.  Have fun!

UPDATE:  Three unfortunate omissions from the poll:  Akeel Bilgrami, Alvin Goldman, Evan Thompson.

The 7 most "influential" Israeli philosophers

Since everyone loves a ranking,this one seems pretty sensible  (though I've never heard of Ophir, I must confess).

How "professional" is Carolyn Dicey Jennings's data analysis?

Jenny Saul (Sheffield) declared Prof. Jennings "a professional data guru."  How professional?  This exchange between her and David Wallace (Oxford) is instructive.  Prof. Wallace starts by quoting Jennings's attempt to attack me with her data:

 

David Wallace said...

"9 of the 11 programs mentioned by Brian have a higher percentage of either women graduates or non-white (citizen/permanent resident) graduates than the percentage for all of the covered programs for this time period. "

If you picked 11 programs at random, on average 8.25 would have a higher percentage of either women graduates or non-white (citizen/permanent resident) graduates than the percentage for all of the covered programs for this time period. So by itself that isn't a persuasive argument.

Reply 18 January 2016 at 14:14

 

Carolyn Dicey Jennings said in reply to David Wallace...

Here is another way of looking at this: 32 of the 97 (33%) programs have neither a higher percentage of women graduates than the overall percentage nor a higher percentage of non-white graduates, whereas only 2 of the 11 (18%) programs listed by Brian Leiter have this quality. Conversely, 67% of all programs have one or the other feature, whereas 82% of the programs from this list have one or the other feature. To me, this is a striking difference. 

Reply 18 January 2016 at 14:36 

 

David Wallace said...

"To me, this is a striking difference."

To me, it's noise. Or to be more accurate, those numbers by themselves don't obviously suggest anything but noise. (11 is a small sample.) You'd need to look at the actual scale of the deviation, institution by institution, to show there's something more interesting going on.

At this point I'd come back to my comment at Feminist Philosophers: this is driven by 3 of the 11 that really do have a statistically significant excess of women and non-whites. The other 8, collectively, are below average.

 

Reply 18 January 2016 at 14:50

MLK's opposition to the war in Vietnam

It's MLK day in America, so to mark the occasion, let's remember this fine speech.  There is no one on the public stage today in this benighted country who can match his rhetorical and oratorical skill.

More reasons to vote for Bernie Sanders...

...courtesy of the right-wing tabloid the New York Post.

In Memoriam: William Craig (1918-2016)

The distinguished logician, who taught for decades at Berkeley, died on January 14.   The Berkeley Department has a memorial on its "News" page.

Ohio State's Justin D'Arms interviewed about his life and work...

...at Emotion Researcher.

Actually, no one has recommended closing programs "that better serve women and minorities in philosophy"...

...but in keeping with the juvenile dishonesty and dissembling with which we've all grown familiar in the philosophy blogosphere, Jenny Saul (Sheffield) and Justin Weinberg (South Carolina) both frames it that way (Saul, of course, without posting a link to the actual discussions about PhD programs that should probably close, since that degree of courtesy and honesty would be too difficult).  Their purported source is Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced), who both links to my discussion and makes clear that her "provocative" question was not my question:

One striking feature of these lists is how many of the programs show up on Brian Leiter's list of PhD programs "whose existence is not easy to explain."  A provocative rhetorical question follows: Should we be closing PhD programs that better serve women and minorities in philosophy?

"How many of the programs" show up?  Ironically, of the 40 programs she lists based on percentage of non-white graduates, just three were on the lists of PhD programs whose rationale for existing I queried, while of the 41 programs she listed based on percentage of female graduates, only seven were on my list.  The fact that some mediocre PhD programs enroll significant numbers of women and minorities ought, in a rational world, be all the more reason to be concerned, since to "better serve" underrepresented populations it is not enough to enroll them, one must give them good educations and launch them on the path to securing the gainful academic employment that the vast majority of them no doubt seek.   So the answer to Prof. Jennings's "provocative" question is easy:  PhD programs that actually "better serve" their students, including women and minorities, should not be closed, but there's no evidence any of the programs on her list are such programs.

What does all this tell us?  It tells us, of course, that discussing the fact that there are too many PhD programs in philosophy in the U.S. touches a nerve, so much so that certain people will seize the opportunity to distort the discussion in any way possible. 

UPDATE:  David Wallace (Oxford) called out Saul's slimy dishonesty in the first comment, and she has now made a slight edit to the original misleading framing.

ANOTHER:  A reader points out that on Twitter, Prof. Jennings was less discreet about her actual purpose.  This is hardly surprising given her track record.

AND ONE MORE:  Prof. Weinberg, to his credit, has linked to this rejoinder from his "heap of links," so I withdraw the suggestion that he meant to mislead anyone.

WALLACE V. JENNINGS:  This is instructive about Prof. Jennings' reliability:  here and here.

Cruz v. Trump on "New York values"

This is quite amusing.

Helsinki's Tuomas Tahko interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Robert Paul Wolff on "Ideological Critique": the YouTube lectures

Professor Wolff has posted the first two of these newly recorded lectures, here and here.  The focus of the first lecture is primarily Mannheim, though with a nice transition towards Marx in the final part.  I have not yet viewed the second lecture.  I can report that the lecture is quite accessible to non-philosophers.