Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Ten Great Rock 'n' Roll Instrumentals continued (#7 & #6): Led Zeppelin, "Black Mountain Side," 1969 & "Bron-Yr-Aur," 1975

Continuing with our great acoustic rock instrumentals, here are two from Led Zeppelin, the first "borrowed" (in that special Zeppelin way) from Bert Jansch's vocal version: 

And then from 1975's Physical Graffiti:

They REALLY are the Texas Taliban...

...and this piece from the Texas Observer makes it clear.

Is Thomas Friedman the biggest idiot in America?

Obviously not, he has stiff competition:  Donald Trump, the "Freedom Caucus" in Congress, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. etc. etc.   But he almost surely is the biggest idiot who is not treated as the big idiot that he actually is.

Higher education is undoubtedly bad for the future prospects of the Republican Party...

...so it's hardly surprising that Republicans have their doubts about higher education.  But more seriously, this is a predictable consequence of the right-wing media demonization of universities and faculty.

Blast from the past: the NY Times's elevation of the hack Simon Critchley

I was right back in 2010, and it's still a disgrace.

Title IX enforcement regarding campus sexual assault being reevaluated

This was expected, but now it's happening.  The current system at most schools (maybe all schools?) serves neither complainants nor respondents well.  What the Department of Education should do is fund special units devoted to campus sexual misconduct within existing district attorney offices, so that there would be some semblance of professionalism and process.

Jeffrey Sachs on Ronald Reagan

This, of course, is quite right, though it does suggest he reads this blog!

Teesside "University" [sic] requires existing professors to "re-apply" for their jobs

Unbelievable.  If they wanted to convince the entire academic world they aren't a real university, this was the way to do it.  There is an "open letter" about this bad behavior here.  I have signed, and encourage others to do so.  As we learned in the case of bad behavior by the KCL administration a number of years ago, public outcry can make a difference.

(Thanks to Paolo Sandro for the pointer.)

Political polarization--as measured by "news" sources--is worse on the right in America

This is interesting, and the only solution, I fear, is the one I discuss here.

Top 15 Anglophone epistemology programs?

With the help of our friend Condorcet and the well-informed readership, we've gotten pretty plausible results in "overall" rankings, but what about a specialty area, like epistemology?  I've included all those that ranked in 2014.  Have fun!

Blast from the past: "David Publishing"

Back in 2013, but still relevant.

Skidmore's William Lewis interviewed...

...at 3AM.  Philosophically, I vote for Althusser to remain forgotten:  Marx deserves better.

David Papineau talks about philosophy of sport...

...at IAI.

The top 10 U.K. PhD programs in philosophy according to the readers here who participated in a Condorcet poll

Over 400 votes (!), and again fairly plausible results (below the fold),  noting the vote gaps between each school.  I've also inserted lines to reflect the more significant gaps in the votes.  In some cases where the vote gap was very small, I treated the results as a tie.

Ten Great Rock 'n' Roll Instrumentals (#8 & 9): Jefferson Airplane, "Embryonic Journey," 1967 and Hot Tuna, "Water Song," 1972

Continuing our new Saturday night series, these two tunes were both written by guitarist Jorma Kaukonen, who along with Airplan bassist Jack Casady, constituted the band Hot Tuna.  First, from 1967:

And then 1972:

Top 5 PhD programs in philosophy in Canada...

...based on yet another internet (Condorcet) poll.  Only vote if you know something about Canadian philosophy programs!

Ryckman on Einstein: an interview

Thomas Ryckman (Stanford) talks about the latest volume, on Einstein, in my Routledge Philosophers series.

So here's the top 25 American PhD programs in philosophy according to an Internet condorcet poll

The results (with nearly 500 votes) were actually not unreasonable (thanks to the well-informed readership of this blog), though there were a few slightly odd ones that I expect we won't see replicated in the PGR surveys conducted this fall; more on the odd results, below.  I list the top 25 below the fold, noting the vote gaps between each school.  I've also inserted lines to reflect the more significant gaps in the votes.  In some cases where the vote gap was very small, I treated the results as a tie.

On New York bluntness...

...and other serial offenders against WASP decorum, the latter itself an artifact of class hierarchy.  While suburban Republican women might have been put off by Trump's rude mouth (as the Clinton campaign hoped), it was a matter of indifference to many working-class voters, just as it was in New York with respect to Koch and Giuliani.  (Ironically, the role of "suburban Republican women" is played in academic philosophy by a group that has a different ideology, but shares the etiquette prejudices of its prissy class.)

ADDENDUM:  Also relevant.

The crazy, crazy state of Texas

A long piece in The New Yorker, that sums up what Republican crazy is like these days.   When I arrived in Texas in 1995, George W. Bush was Governor, and a benign figure, interested in cutting taxes and "tort reform," and little else.   When he became President, Rick Perry became Governor, and went increasingly beserk.  By the time I left in 2008, right-wing crazy was ascending, and it's only gotten worse since.  It's a human tragedy.

Reader mail

Haven't run one of these in awhile, but I got this nice note last week from a younger philosopher who had written me with a news tip:

By the way, I think your blog is great.  This is not a new sentiment of mine, but I just thought I’d pass it along given this opportunity.  I admire your intellectual and emotional honesty, even in the face of some rather aggressive sanctimonious witch hunts.  And not to mention, I find myself in agreement with most of your views.  Nevertheless, the former stands even when the latter does not hold.    

Happy July 4th from Bertrand Russell

"Every school, with hardly any exception, has as one of its objects the deception of children. They teach them patriotism, to salute the flag. But the flag is a murder symbol, and the state is a pirate ship, a gang of murderers who have come together. When they salute the flag, they salute the symbol of bloody murder."

    --Bertrand Russell, 1963

Philosophy and standardized test scores: causation or correlation?

Philosopher Michael Bergmann (Purdue) calls my attention to this essay that tries to debunk claims regularly made by philosophy departments about the benefits of learning critical thinking and analysis, as reflected, in part, in standardized test scores.  (A sidenote:  the author Neven Sesardic is a right-wing crank who has even written a whole book expressing disbelief that philosophers might not all be anti-Marxist zealots like he is.  I even make a brief appearance in the book, based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of a post on this blog.  Be that as it may, this piece should stand or fall on its own merits, though be advised that honesty may not be this guy's strong suit.)

Here's the crux of the piece, once you get past all the huffing and puffing:

In reality, however, there is no justification for such claims. Getting higher test scores after studying philosophy does not show that higher scores are the result of studying philosophy. For all we know, it may be that philosophy students are brighter than average to begin with, and that this is why they perform so well on the tests. If that were true, their high scores would have nothing to do with their studying philosophy courses. Therefore, as long as this alternative hypothesis is not ruled out, no inference about practical benefits of philosophy is logically permissible....

Notice the irony. In their very attempt to promote philosophy as a great way to improve one’s critical thinking and logic, philosophers have so massively fallen prey to one of the most common and easily detectable logical fallacies—post hoc, ergo propter hoc (that is, A is followed by B, therefore, A caused B). This should give us pause about rushing to accept the idea that philosophy improves thinking.

But wait, doesn’t philosophy focus very heavily on logic, analysis of arguments, fostering a critical approach, etc.? Shouldn’t this fact alone make us expect that exposure to philosophy would almost certainly lead to some improvement in thinking and reasoning skills? Not necessarily.

In other words, there is no evidence adduced that philosophy does  not have the benefits claimed; the only claim is that alternative explanations for the data have not been ruled out.  (Sesardic says "there is no justification for such claims," but he hasn't shown that at all.)  It is possible that training in philosophy does not have the salutary effects claimed.  It is also possible that it does have these effects:  after all, as Sesardic recognizes, the subject-matter would seem to be related to acquiring certain kinds of analytical skills that might manifest themselves in precisely the data noted.   Is it really a failure of "philosophical reasoning" for departments on their websites to note the correlation and assume it is an instance of causation?  Might this just not be prudence on behalf of a discipline that does, in fact, teach useful intellectual skills, but is too often derided by outsiders?

Sesardic's primary method of argument is well-illustrated by this passage:

Prominent Yale philosopher Shelly Kagan writes that “of all the various fields and disciplines, there is one field that most centrally emphasizes the skills in question [improved critical thinking, communicating and being creative and original], and it is, indeed, philosophy” and that “one reason to study philosophy is that there is nothing better at improving your ability to think for yourself…” (He offers no justification for these claims.)

Can Sesardic really not think of a justification?  Here's a possibility:  read a good philosopher on some topic, and then read a non-philosopher on the same topic.   Repeat for different topics.  I have an hypothesis:  one might notice that the quality of argument, analysis and clarity is superior in the philosophical writing.  (I disagree with Kagan that philosophers are more creative and original, that is just empty self-congratulation.)

Professor Bergmann suggested I open this for discussion.  The discussion will be moderated; only comments related to the issues raised by the essay are invited.  Comments may take awhile to appear; please be patient.

In Memoriam: Henry Rosemont, Jr. (1934-2017)

A noted scholar of Chinese philosophy, Professor Rosemont taught for many years at St. Mary's College in Maryland.  Philosopher Kate Norlock (Trent), who called his passing to my attention, wrote:

Henry was faculty emeritus at St. Mary's College of Maryland, where he was formative in the creation of one of the only Philosophy programs in the country to offer an undergraduate curriculum including courses in both East Asian and South Asian philosophies and religions. He earned his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Washington and an honors A.B. from the University of Illinois. His post-doctoral studies in linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969-71 included studying with Noam Chomsky. His books include A Chinese Mirror, Radical Confucianism, and The Chinese Classic Of Family Reverence: A Philosophical Translation Of The Xiaojing. 

He retired the year I began my tenure track at St. Mary's. What can I say about such a Confucian scholar?  He was simultaneously the most hospitable and the most intimidating philosopher I have ever met in my life. What an excellent figure.

Rank the top 10 U.K. philosophy programs

So the results for the U.S. poll were, with a couple of exceptions, quite sensible for the top 25, so let's give the U.K. a shot.  Obviously the readership here is well-informed!  Have fun!

Donald Trump, a "Real Fake"

Chicago strikes back.

Waterloo's John Turri interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Blast from the past: "David Lewis Syndrome"

Back in 2004:   "Philosophers manifest David Lewis Syndrome when they bring extraordinary dialectical ingenuity to bear on behalf of completely implausible philosophical theses."

Ten Great Rock 'n' Roll Instrumentals: Leo Kottke, "Vaseline Machine Gun," 1969 (#10)

We're going to take a break from the usual "obscure" fare over the next ten weeks to feature the ten best rock 'n' roll instrumentals from the "classic rock" era.  Some will be familiar, others hopefully less so.  We'll start with more acoustic numbers and move on to heavier, electric items.  What better place to start than with Leo Kottke--king of the 12-string acoustic--and his trademark song from his 1969 album:

And here's a live recording, notable less for the audio than the visuals of his playing the 12-string guitar: