Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

America is not a civilized country

The latest easily preventable gun massacre should confirm that, at least for sapient beings.  The odds, currently, of being massacred by random maniacs in America is relatively low:  1 in 16,0000.   Of course, in civilized countries, the odds are more like 1 in a million.  As we learn from decision theorists (they do serve a purpose, right?), we should consider both the risk of a bad event and how bad the event is.   In the latest easily preventable gun massacre in Texas, a 6-year old boy lost both his parents and his 3-year-old brother.  Maybe I'm weird, but that seems to me catastrophically bad.  Another set of parents lost both their daughters, who were 11 and 8.   Again, that seems to me catastrophically, life-wreckingly bad, but maybe I'm not good at decision theory.

In normal, civilized countries, when grotesque events like this occur, the government changes the law.  That's what happened in Australia, which shows that these incidents can easily be prevented.  In America, these incidents are not easily preventable because the country is not civilized:  many of its elected leaders are barbarians.  It is not complicated.

I do fear this country is sick beyond repair.  I would be glad to be wrong.

UPDATE:   Reader Jonathan Turner reminds me of these routines about America's gun craziness by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies:  here and here.

ANOTHER:  look at the lifetime odds for gun deaths in the U.S.!

Blast from the past: Beiser on Hegel

Back in 2012.  The full interview is still available here.

Timothy Williamson talks about the "philosophy of philosophy"...

...at Parker's Pensees.

(Thanks to Aaron Preston for the pointer.)

What if the American Academy of Arts & Sciences returns to honoring faculty *exclusively* for scholarly achievement...

...rather than membership in professional networks (e.g., "Christian philosophers," "decision theorists," "Kant scholars," "friends of Sally"), or demographic diversity.   Over the years, I have been pretty good at identifying those who should be elected on the merits.  For example, on my 2010 list of "sins of omission," most have since been elected, although I'm still astonished that Larry Laudan, one of the major figures in philosophy of science in the last fifty years, did not; and there is still time to make up for some of the other omissions.  (Larry, I suspect, did not kiss up to the right people, but he was a far more important figure in the history of philosophy of science than at least a half-dozen folks who were elected over the last quarter-century.)

New bill making its way through Texas legislature would preserve "tenure in name only"...

...or a kind of pseudo-tenure, as Keith Whittington explains:

Section 3(c) defines the property interest in tenure as a single year salary. This is designed to allow university to fire tenured faculty without good cause so long as it pays out a single year salary. A mockery of meaningful tenure...

And then we have terms of good-cause dismissal of tenured faculty. Section 3(c-1)(2)(A)(iv) allows for moral turpitude. Would like to know how common this is in tenure policies. I suspect not very. Seems ripe for abuse in context of faculty position....

And then part (v) allowing termination for violating university policies. Could easily facilitate death penalty for misdemeanors, and leaves open possibility of university adopting lots of highly dubious policies — such as bans on teaching divisive concepts....

And then part (vi) allowing termination for “unprofessional conduct.” Much more sweeping than how university policies are generally written. I would not like to arm an unfriendly administrator with such an I’ll-defined power.

 

Masks actually work for reasons we have long understood

This essay makes an important point:

For masks, are randomized trials an appropriate way of evaluating a basic engineered safety system in the first place? We don’t rely on such trials for seat belts, bike helmets or life jackets, and the oft-cited randomized trial of parachutes is an old running joke. Why is that so hilarious? What do the engineers know that doctors don’t?

 

In many scientific disciplines randomized trial methods are fundamentally inappropriate—akin to using a scalpel to mow a lawn. If something can be directly measured or accurately and precisely modeled, there is no need for complex, inefficient trials that put participants at risk. Engineering, perhaps the most “real-world” of disciplines, doesn’t conduct randomized trials. Its necessary knowledge is well-understood. Everything from highways to ventilation systems—everything that moves us, cleans our air and our water, and puts satellites into orbit—succeeds without needing them. This includes many medical devices. When failures like a plane crash or catastrophic bridge collapse do occur, they are recognized and systematically analyzed to ensure they don’t happen again. The contrast with the lack of attention paid to public health failures in this pandemic is stark.

 

Ernest Lepore (Rutgers) talks about philosophy of language, slurs and other topics...

...at Robinson's Podcast.

What philosophical ideas should non-philosophers know about?

Philosopher Iskra Fileva posed this nice question on FB, and I thought it would be interesting to pose it here for a wider audience.  Professor Fileva asked her friends to pick just "three top" ideas, but I'm happy if readers want to propose more than three.  From many years of teaching philosophy to law students (and very good law students I might add), as well as talking to very smart law faculty, here are a few familiar philosophical ideas that I think are valuable for non-philosophers to understand:  the difference between justification and truth, and, relatedly, the difference between an epistemic and a metaphysical claim; the idea of a "natural kind," whether understood in the Kripke-Putnam way, or the earlier Whewell-Mill-Quine way (I prefer the latter); the difference between realism and anti-realism about some domain, and its relationship to ideas of mind- or attitude-independence.   I'm sure there are many others, so welcome reader perspectives on this.  I'd be particularly interested to hear from non-philosophy readers about what philosophical ideas they have found especially useful.  It's also fine to answer this question with an eye to philosophical ideas "ordinary" people might find important in their lives, and not simply those that are helpful in other areas of scholarship or study. 

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Tin House, "Be Good and Be Kind" (1971)

ORIGINALLY POSTED JANUARY 14, 2017

This hard rock/blues rock trio came out of Florida, their debut album, from which this tune comes, produced by Rick Derringer.  The guitarist Floyd Radford was, alas, hired away by Edgar Winter not long after the first album (he subsequently played with Johnny Winter as well).  But this is one of several strong numbers from the one and only album by the original lineup featuring Radford.

 

 

Scharp from Twente to Illinois/Urbana

Kevin Scharp (philosophy of language, philosophy of science, philosophy of artificial intelligence, ethics), currently at the University of Twente, has accepted appointment as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, beginning 2023-24.  He was previously Professor of Philosophy at Ohio State University, and Reader in Philosophy at the University of St Andrews.  This is the second senior appointment for Illinois this year!  These appointments stand a good chance of putting the department back in the U.S. top 50.

The Interim Head of the Department, Robin Kar, tells me that the Department has also voted out two other senior offers, and will be doing another senior search next year.  It's good to see the University investing so seriously in philosophy!

Blast from the past: co-author of APA Code of Conduct violates it without any sense of embarrassment

Back in 2018.

Someone actually read hundreds of mostly unmoderated blog comments...

...and wrote about what they reveal about the sociology of the philosophy profession.  It took real courage to do this, given the first and fifth laws of cyber-dynamics!  

(Thanks to Cora Diamond for the pointer.)

What is it like to be a philosopher? Valerie Tiberius edition

Here.

Philosopher Rachel Barney (Toronto) discusses the Sophists...

...at Robinson's Podcast.

Blast from the past: "On New York bluntness"

Back in 2017.

"Philosophy in the Open" from the Open University

 Philosopher Dan Cavedon-Taylor from the Open University writes:

A new online exhibition is being launched today on the Open University Digital Archive. Philosophy in the Open: The OU Philosophy Media Archive, contains over 30 hours of footage of interviews and debates between some of the most celebrated mid-to-late 20th century British philosophers (readers may be familiar with the Evans and Strawson debate on truth). These videos, many of which were originally broadcast on the BBC, were made in the early days of the Open University to support its teaching in Philosophy. They are a snapshot of a golden age of philosophy in Great Britain, made public here for the first time. 

Interviewees include: 

A. J. Ayer, Renford Bambrough, K. K. Baublys, R. B. Braithwaite, Gareth Evans, Allen Phillips Griffiths, Susan Haack, R. M. Hare, Rodney Hirst, A. J. P. Kenny, Martha Kneale, Stephan Körner, Anthony Quinton, Gilbert Ryle, Dennis Sciama, B. F. Skinner, Charles Taylor, Godfrey Vesey, G. J. Warnock, Alan White, Bernard Williams. 

OU has also commissioned some new essays and videos by contemporary philosophers discussing these older ones.

Logician W. Hugh Woodin elected to the National Academy of Sciences

Here.  He has appointments in both mathematics and philosophy at Harvard.   There are not many faculty in philosophy departments elected to the NAS; the only other living ones are Allan Gibbard (Michigan) and Brian Skryms (UC Irvine).  Past members from philosophy include W.V.O. Quine and Patrick Suppes.

Not all philosophy journal experieces with Wiley have been bad

I reached out to philosopher Ernest Sosa, who has long been involved with three Wiley journals: as Editor of Philosophical Issues, and Editor-in-Chief of Nous and Philosophy & Phenomenological Research.  I wanted to know what his experience had been like, given the unhappy reports that have recently surfaced in connection with Journal of Political Philosophy and Philosophy & Public Affairs.  Professor Sosa replied:  "Our experience with Wiley’s editorial representatives has been uniformly excellent in every way. In particular, we have never experienced any pressure to adjust our editorial policies and procedures to any business objectives. At all three journals we have always enjoyed complete editorial autonomy."  This is encouraging to hear.   Other editors involved with Wiley journals are also invited to comment on their experiences.  Full name required, and valid email address (the latter will not appear).

Saul Kripke Memorial Conference, May 8-9, 2023

The final schedule is here.  More information here about how to register for livestream of the event, and the "Building Access Policy" for those who want to attend in person.

(As an aside, as longtime readers will know, I do not generally post conference announcements, but I make an exception for memorial events for philosophers like this one.)

CHE offers a few more details on the Wiley/JPP fiasco

Following up on the events we first reported on here, CHE offers a couple of new details, in particular:

Christian Barry, one of the co-editors, told The Chronicle that he and the two other co-editors discussed among themselves and with Goodin what they should do. While they strongly disliked how Goodin was treated, they also recognized the work Goodin had poured into the journal and its important role in academe, which felt like it was worth preserving. With Goodin’s blessing, Barry said, they began discussing with Wiley representatives the contours of an agreement to take over editorship of the journal.

The conversation turned to numbers. Ed Colby, a Wiley spokesperson, told The Chronicle in an email that “a moderate increase of two additional articles per year had been proposed” to the co-editors. “Wiley is always looking for sustainable ways to grow our journals in close consultation with our editors, especially as we transition to open access and research becomes more international.”

"Research finds no gender bias in academic science"

This is striking:

Claims of widespread gender bias in tenure-track hiring, grant funding and journal acceptances in the academic sciences are not supported by the data, a new study finds.Is

The paper published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest looked at two decades of research regarding biases that tenure-track women have faced since 2000. In the end, the authors determined tenure-track women in science, technology, engineering or math were at parity with men in tenure-track positions in the same fields when it comes to grant funding, journal acceptances and recommendation letters.

Women did have an advantage in the hiring process for the tenure-track jobs, though the evidence did show a bias against women in teaching evaluations and salaries. The salary gap, according to the report, was concerning but smaller than the oft-quoted statistic that women in STEM fields make 82 cents for every dollar that men earn. On average, the gap was 9 cents on the dollar, although the gap shrank to less than 4 cents when controlling for experience, type of institution and productivity, among other factors.

If anyone has examined the methodology of this study carefully, I'd be interested to know whether it seems sound.  I have neither the time nor competence to evaluate it.

"Wokeness" in Chile

Longtime reader S. Wallerstein, another man of the actual left in Chile, writes (a propos yesterday's post):

I have a friend, a feminist academic, with the equivalent of a tenured position in a Chilean university of excellent academic quality.   She has been a feminist activist since I met her 40 years ago, long before feminism became fashionable,  during the Pinochet dictatorship when it was,   if not exactly dangerous, at least not profitable.  

She complains about how woke the students and younger generation of feminists are, on how they emphasize trans rights as somehow more important than the issues that she is concerned with, unequal pay, unequal distribution of household work and childcare, domestic violence,    abortion rights.  etc., on how intersectionality dictates that her concerns as a middle class white feminist  are seen as trivial compared to the concerns of women from racial minorities, even though most Chilean women undoubtedly see themselves as white and have more or less the same concerns as she does.       

The pressures to conform are not as strong as those in the U.S., but woke is very present.   

Blast from the past: Reworking some articles into a book: a bad idea for junior faculty?

No it is not!  A discussion back in 2013.

Was the "Great Awokening" a global phenomenon?

Some evidence it was.

(Thanks to Benj Hellie for the pointer.)

"Top ten" departments hiring junior faculty with PhDs from outside the "top ten"

University of Southern California hired tenure-track assistant professors this year with PhDs from SUNY-Buffalo, U Mass/Amherst, and British Columbia.   That's striking and quite unusual for a "top ten" program, but demonstrates a clear confidence in judgment and careful reading of files.  Of course, U Mass/Amherst and British Columbia are strong departments at the international level (both top 40 in the Anglophone world), but they rarely place graduates at this level.  Other examples are harder to come by (e.g., Harvard hired Samantha Matherne (PhD, UC Riverside), who works on Kant and post-Kantian philosophy, an area where UCR is excellent), and certainly not three in one year.   Looking over other "top 10" departments in the U.S., the only other case I find of tenure-stream junior faculty without PhDs from "top 10" programs is at Michigan (Emmalon Davis [PhD, Indiana], Sonya Ozbey [PhD, DePaul]), although those junior faculty were hired in different years. 

Tenure now under attack in North Carolina

Here.  None of this is surprising in the neoliberal world:  any form of employment guarantee is obviously an offense to the "demands of the market," unless the market is foresighted, which almost none are.  

(Thanks to Adrian Barton for the pointer.)