Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

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.

Agaisnt the idea of a journal for controversial but anonymous articles

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.)

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

...at IAI news.

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.)

Tennessee's Mariam Thalos interviewed...

...at 3AM.

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.)

Against the use of police informants

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

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.

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.

Is sex binary?

Philosopher Alex Byrne (MIT) comments.

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.

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 philosophy of horror

Noel Carroll (CUNY Grad Center) comments.

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.

The peverse and pointless elitism at the core of the APA leadership

A senior philosopher writes:

I've been a long-time APA member and I have to say that my membership was an overall plus to my career.  For example, a co-author was someone I just happened to meet in an elevator in Chicago, and we became life-long friends and collaborators.  But I have to say that Mohan Matthen's comment:  "Election would, of course, depend on name recognition." depressed me.  I have been nominated on several occasions for committee work, and even self-nominated a couple of times.  I never was selected of course, because, well, I'm a relative nobody.   Still, I had some demonstrable chops, and wanted to contribute.  But it didn't happen because I had no real "name recognition" in the profession.  No way I want to get into the APA fray now though.  But I think there are tons of great people--not with "name recognition" though--who could be solid contributors to correct the real plight that the APA is currently in.  Effective participation in the workings of the APA should not be some sort of American Philosophical Idol contest, especially since they take every minion's money for dues and passage, but only allow "stars" to steer the ship.  Perhaps mere nomination by name is not enough--maybe there should be a process not unlike hiring--with CVs and "serving statements"--that ought be reviewed and considered somehow--with a form of affirmative action for good people who aren't big names.  Yes, more work for some people, but maybe also fairer representation for us nobodies.

This is in no way a criticism of Professor Matthen, who simply described, alas correctly, the existing state of affairs.   So let me encourage more "nobodies" to self-nominate and to reach out to me if you're on board with reforming the APA.  Perhaps the "nobodies" might even be more focused on the crucial issues and core functions than the current leadership?

Chicago's Martha Nussbaum wins this year's Berggruen Prize in Philosophy

Announcement here.  Past winners are Charles Taylor and Onora O'Neill.

Nominate Justin Kalef (Rutgers) for an APA leadership position

A propos this, Professor Kalef has expressed interest; would some APA members please nominate him for one or more position (nominees must then accept or decline a nomination).

UPDATE:  As philosopher Mohan Matthen (Toronto) points out, self-nomination is also permitted.   So any folks who share some of the cooncerns about the APA we have been discussing should feel free to self-nominate and then reach out afterwards.

Journals that publish the best work in moral/political philosophy, poll results (Part 1)

Not quite 300 folks voted in last week's poll.  Several readers wrote that they thought it was a mistake to include generalist journals that publish some moral/political papers along with the specialist journals; others pointed out omissions, including Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Social Theory & Practice, Res Publica, and Social Philosophy & Policy.  In light of these concerns, I will run a second poll shortly with only specialty journals in moral and/or political philosophy.  But here are the top 25 from the first poll (I've put an * next to those journals that are specialty journals in these areas):

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

2. *Philosophy & Public Affairs  loses to Ethics by 151–66

3. Philosophical Review  loses to Ethics by 180–29, loses to Philosophy & Public Affairs by 147–60

4. Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 200–18, loses to Philosophical Review by 102–58

5. Nous  loses to Ethics by 195–18, loses to Journal of Philosophy by 93–72

6. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research  loses to Ethics by 200–18, loses to Nous by 86–76

7. Mind  loses to Ethics by 195–16, loses to Philosophy & Phenomenological Research by 84–77

8. *Journal of Political Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 202–20, loses to Mind by 99–86

9. Philosophical Studies  loses to Ethics by 210–11, loses to Journal of Political Philosophy by 104–85

10. Australasian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 209–14, loses to Philosophical Studies by 101–62

11. Philosopher's Imprint  loses to Ethics by 205–12, loses to Australasian Journal of Philosophy by 84–82

12. *Journal of Moral Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 212–13, loses to Philosopher's Imprint by 90–84

13. *Utilitas  loses to Ethics by 207–15, loses to Journal of Moral Philosophy by 102–75

14. Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 206–14, loses to Utilitas by 88–81

15. *Ethical Theory and Moral Practice  loses to Ethics by 213–14, loses to Philosophical Quarterly by 92–84

16. *Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 211–10, loses to Ethical Theory and Moral Practice by 96–76

17. *Politics, Philosophy & Economics  loses to Ethics by 203–15, loses to Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy by 94–80

18. Canadian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 212–6, loses to Politics, Philosophy & Economics by 84–79

19. *Journal of Ethics  loses to Ethics by 210–10, loses to Canadian Journal of Philosophy by 96–70

20. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society  loses to Ethics by 210–8, loses to Journal of Ethics by 89–73

21. American Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 202–11, loses to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society by 72–66

22. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 208–6, loses to American Philosophical Quarterly by 69–54

23. European Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 208–12, loses to Pacific Philosophical Quarterly by 72–63

24. Ratio  loses to Ethics by 211–10, loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 71–70

25. *Journal of Value Inquiry  loses to Ethics by 209–10, loses to Ratio by 83–52

Oseroff apologizes to Professor Stock and others for his on-line conduct

Here.  Good for him!

BU's Paul Katsafanas interviewed...

...at 3AM.  An interesting interview; I agree with some things he says, disagree pretty strongly with some others.

Co-author of APA Code of Conduct violates it, without embarrassment

The APA Code of Conduct, with its violation of the academic freedom rights of faculty, was always an absurd document.  But one might have thought at least those responsible for it would care about it.  Apparently not!

One co-author of the Code, philosopher Yolonda Wilson (Howard), while disagreeing with my views about the APA, decided she also needed to do so by deeming me a "mediocre-ass white man."  (We shall bracket the inaptness of the characterization, apart from the "man" bit.)  Let's note some of the provisions of the Code Professor Wilson helped write which this seems to violate:

1.  Section IV, regarding "Electronic Communications," provides that "it’s best to avoid ad hominem arguments and personal attacks, especially if they amount to slander, libel, and/or sexual harassment and "Language used in professional electronic communications should use the same kind of inclusive language and reflect the same kind of mutual respect as is expected in the classroom or other face-to-face interactions."  Professor Wilson might defend her use of personal attacks and lack of mutual respect and inclusive language by noting that this was not a professional communication (although its subject was a matter of professional concern) and perhaps it was not made from her Howard University computer.  (I note in passing that in response to my pointing out her hypocrisy, she offered as a defense the claim that she would "say it to my face."  I admire that forthrightness, though if anything would violate the APA Code of Conduct, surely it would be face-to-face abuse with epithets...one hopes!)

2.  Section V, on "Bullying [sic] and Harassment," purports to apply to conduct by APA members not simply towards colleagues and students but "others in the profession."  This is specifically said to prohibit "any degrading, hostile, or offensive conduct or comment by a person towards another that the person knew or reasonably ought to have known would cause the target to be humiliated, intimidated, or otherwise gratuitously harmed. Typical examples of bullying and harassment include verbal aggression" and "calling someone conventionally derogatory names or using derogatory stereotypes to describe them."  Obviously Professor Wilson is in plain violation of this provision of the Code.  Professor Wilson, however, explained that she was not being hypocritical in her conduct because, "Truth-telling is not hypocritical."  Now in the Code as written, there is clearly no exception for "truth-telling" via verbal aggressionn and the use of derogatory names and stereotypes.  But for those originalists out there, please take note:  according to one of the framers, none of these provisions apply when one takes onself to speak truthfully!

Shall we hold our breath to see whether any officer of the APA deigns to condemn this violation of the Code by an APA member involved in drafting it?  Of course not!

Will this year *really* be a good job market for specialists in the post-Kantian Continental traditions?

Last year was shaping up to be, but in the end several of the places advertising hired in other areas or didn't hire at all.  (The excellent Samantha Matherne got some of the offers, and I was delighted an excellent student of mine also secured a tenure-track job--but overall, last year did not live up to promise for Continental candidates.)   But a job seeker this year writes:  "In glancing over this year's job ads, I get the impression that the trend continues to hold. By my count, there are jobs expressing serious interest in this area at Yale, UC Riverside (full prof.), Fordham, Boston College, Loyola Marymount, U. Mich/Dearborn, Vassar, McMaster, University College Dublin (4-year post-doc). Other ads voice interest in this area, even if they don't list it is as an AOS/AOC."  Let's hope so. The last two centuries of philosophy in Continental Europe are easily the most important and relevant in the last five hundred.  In the midst of all the diversity blather, we should remember that huge swaths of Western philosophy--the last two centuries of Continental European philosophy, not to mention medieval philosophy--are regularly ignored in Anglophone philosophy departments.  

Best journals for moral and political philosophy?

Philosopher Peter Vallentyne (Missouri) suggested it might be worthwhile to once again run some reader polls on the best journals in vaarious areas.  I'll start with the best journals for moral and political philosophy:  this includes some generalist journals that regularly publish moral and/or political philosophy papers, as well as specialist journals.  Rank order them based on the quality of the work they publish in moral and political philosophy.  There are 34 choices; unfortunately, new choices can't be added once the poll has started, but hopefully there are no egregious omissions.

Interviews with philosophers of action

Lots of them at this website!  (Link now fixed.)

'Philosophy of Hunting'...

...at St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta.  As they say, philosophy is about everything in principle!

(Thanks to Robert McGarvey for the pointer.)

Physics and reality

Philosopher Nancy Cartwright (Durham/UC San Diego) discusses with a physicist as well as the owner of IAITV, Hilary Lawson, who really puts himself in far too many of these discussions with experts.

Reader mail

This one was quite funny, from longtime reader Michael Bramley in the U.K.:

As a longtime reader of your philosophy blog (10+ years) I wanted to write a note of thanks for your tireless coverage of these permanently furious, bloodthirsty dogmatists on the Left that give the rest of us (on the same side!) such a bad name. I referring to all this crap about diversity and New Infantilism and of course the nonsense on stilts regarding Tuvel and Stock.

One wonders what bile these True Believers would produce if you *weren't* shining a light on these specimens of slave revolt! Despite my love for medical statistics, here is one situation where I am truly glad there is no control group!

2 350 years ago, Aristotle wrote that, 'To entertain a thought without accepting it is the mark of an educated mind.' In 2018, even entertaining a hypothetical (that is contrary to the party line) is the mark of the devil . This is how the world ends, then: not with a bang, but with a hashtag. (And this is what we're trying to send to Mars?!)

I suspect the item last week on Professor Trott's hypocrisy prompted this, but he raises a good question:  namely, if someone were not shining a very public light on their misconduct, their hypocrisy, their mobbing, their attempts to suppress ideas and speech, would they be doing even worse?  It's hard to imagine what that would be, but maybe vocal opposition does slow them down a bit.  It is at least, as I know from much correspondence, helpful to the targets of the thought police to know they have much support.

Sussex's Kathleen Stock interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Open-access journal 'Ergo' seeks managing editors

The out-going editors, Franz Huber and Jonathan Weisberg, asked me to share the following, which I'm happy to do in support of open-acess publishing:

We are looking for qualified candidates to become managing editors of Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, effective July 1, 2019. Ben Bradley (Syracuse) and Alastair Wilson (Birmingham) have generously volunteered to serve. We welcome applications that propose to complete this team, but also applications that propose their own, distinct team (e.g. for logistical or funding reasons).

Responsibilities include handling the day-to-day editorial business including the recruitment of area editors; managing copy-editing and production and publication; securing funding; and maintaining the editorial management system. Information about the journal, including its mission and policies, as well as statistics, can be found here:

https://www.ergophiljournal.org/
https://www.ergosubmissions.org/

Interested individuals and groups are asked to get in touch with Jonathan Weisberg and Franz Huber at: {jonathan.weisberg, franz.huber}@utoronto.ca

We will begin evaluating applications November 1, 2018

A reality check on the Oseroff scandal and the APA Blog (UPDATED)

Given that the Twitter Red Guard continue to dissemble and moan about Professor Stock's and my expose of the APA blog scandal, perhaps a reality check is in order.

Nathan Oseroff, a man in his late 20s, who has a prominent on-line position with the American Philosophical Association (that he continuously advertises), took it upon himself to launch a jihad against feminist philosophers, especially philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex) who held what he, in his superior wisdom, deemed to be a "morally unacceptable" opinion about the proposed gender self-ID law in the United Kingdom (this law would permit anyone to redesignate their gender for all legal purposes without any medical or other oversight, evaluation or waiting periods).  This man used his role at the APA blog to post a comment attacking Prof. Stock on the APA's blog that violated blog guidelines (the editor in charge of the blog apologized to Prof. Stock, removed the comment and briefly suspended the offender--remarkably, he has not been removed entirely). 

This adult male also took to social media to defame Prof. Stock as someone who directed "hate" at her students and colleagues.  Doing so would be grossly unprofessional conduct, but this man's only evidence for his libelous charge was that Prof. Stock had a different view about the gender self-ID Law in the UK than he did.   In addition, it turns out that this man also abused his role at the APA to "police" the conference practices of a philosophy society that had actually accepted one of his papers, even though the APA, let alone its blog or its editors, has no authority about how professional societies referee papers.

This adult man, who is almost 30 years old, objected that no one should criticize him since he is a PhD student in philosophy. Some of his fellow Twitteratti, endorsed this view (unsurprisingly, they are all similarly situated:  adults in school engaged in stupid on-line conduct!).  

I suggest that Donald Trump should enroll in a PhD program soon, since some segment of the population apparently believes that misconduct is entitled to a free pass if the perpetrator is an adult PhD student.  (Unfortunately for Trump, that segment may consist only of the Twitter Red Guard.)

A (mostly) substantive response by three philosophers to arguments put forward by philosopher Kathleen Stock and other gender critical feminists

Here.   I do not ultimately find it persuasive (see this comment by philosopher Sophie Allen [Keele] which identifies a key weakness of the response), but it is mostly serious and substantive (unlike most of the responses to Professor Stock from Nathan Oseroff & the Twitter Red Guard, I. Pohl, Talia Mae Bettcher, L. Mollica, Asia Ferrin et al.) and worth reading for anyone who has been following this debate.  (It goes off the rails towards the end, however, in trying to rationalize the idiotic rhetoric of those who would silence debate--speaking of which, this reaction is representative of the totalitarian mindset in parts of academic philosophy.)

ADDENDUM:  The last link no longer works, but Professor Stock caught a screen shot of this disgraceful performance by philosopher Rebecca Kukla (Georgetown).

Philosopher who participated in the on-line 'harassment' of Rebecca Tuvel has the audacity to lecture others about on-line 'harassment' in philosophy

Adriel Trott (Wabash) apparently has no shame.  Note that this hypocrite is also involved with the APA Blog!  (Perhaps unsurprisingly, Prof. Trott is giving this audacious lecture at a meeting of the SPEP Advocacy Committee.)

I put "harassment" in quotes for the obvious reason:  Trott conflates actual harassment, such as death threats, with on-line "trolling" and no doubt any criticism, at least of her friends and tastes.  Her essay really isn't about harassment, but another tired attempt to whitewash suppression of the views she doesn't like--hence this bit of self-serving blather:   "Only such community projects [like the APA Blog!] can resist posts that draw in traffic and do real [sic] harm by discussing experiences and identities of marginalized groups in philosophically abstract and distant tones as if people’s lives are puzzles."  In her world, the 'harassment' of Professor Tuvel is, no doubt, a model of good community behavior!

(Thanks to several readers who sent this nonsense along.)

UPDATE:  Just to drive home the point that the word 'harassment' doesn't mean anything, we have (who else?) Nathan Oseroff tweeting this morning as follows:

Nathan Oseroff‏ @nathanoseroff 

Can't wait to hear all the established philosophers say they stand with @AdrielTrott after she was harassed by a philosopher after she gave a talk about harassment in philosophy.

4:23 AM - 19 Oct 2018

I'm sure some "established philosophers" do stand with Trott's shameless hypocrisy, no doubt because they share in it.

UK academics (and others) protest harassment of those taking critical approach to transgender issues in the proposed new UK law

Good to see many philosophers are signatories.  From the letter:

We are also concerned about the suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism, and its multiple causes and effects. Members of our group have experienced campus protests, calls for dismissal in the press, harassment, foiled plots to bring about dismissal, no-platforming, and attempts to censor academic research and publications. Such attacks are out of line with the ordinary reception of critical ideas in the academy, where it is normally accepted that disagreement is reasonable and even productive.

Many of our universities have close links with trans advocacy organisations who provide “training” of academics and management, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, influence university policy through these links. Definitions used by these organisations of what counts as “transphobic” can be dangerously all-encompassing and go well beyond what a reasonable law would describe. They would not withstand academic analysis, and yet their effect is to curtail academic freedom and facilitate the censoring of academic work. We also worry about the effect of such definitions on the success rates of journal submissions and research grant applications from governmental bodies such as the AHRC and ESRC.

Robot teaching introduction to ethics at West Point

Given the dreary state of moral philosophy, this doesn't seem that far-fetched, does it?  Next up:  robot teaches armchair metaphysics.

'The Hard Problem,' the play

Of all the hard problems in the world, this one is way down the list, but still!

What is it like to be a philosopher: Rebecca Kukla edition

Here.  The story of her early life, "upbringing" (you'll see why I put it in quotes if you read the interview), and time in graduate school and just after makes for gripping reading.    Her comment on the University of Oregon department was also funny:  "I needed to get out of Oregon, which was a hostile cesspool of a department, riddled by sexual harassment scandals, fractured by ideological battles, bitterly resentful of anything they counted as ‘mainstream’ philosophy, and marked by mean-girl pissing contests over what counted as ‘proper’ feminism. It was awful."

3AM's Richard Marshall reviews the 2018 HowtheLightGetsIn festival in London

Here.

(Thanks to  David Maclean for the pointer.)

In Memoriam: Sylvain Bromberger (1924-2018)

MOVING TO FRONT (ORIGINALLY POSTED SEPTEMBER 19)--UPDATED

A longtime member of the MIT faculty, Professor Bromberger wrote widely in philosophy of linguistics and epistemology (more details here).  There is a brief announcement from the MIT Facebook page here.  I will add links to memorial notices when they appear.

UPDATE:  Philosopher of science Brad Wray (Aarhus) writes:

I just saw on your site that Sylvain B. died.  He was a wonderful person.  I was at MIT for a term in 2015 for a sabbatical leave.

He was already very old – in his 90s.  But he was still coming in for talks, and was involved in a reading group with Chomsky.

He had a very interesting life.  The family escaped Belgium when the Nazis came in, and ended up in America via France (I believe with help from a Portuguese embassy worker).  You can find the details of that on the web.  But then he went and fought in the war.  He returned to do a PhD at Harvard, on a topic inspired by Duhem.  People were not reading Duhem in the USA – even Quine had to have Duhem drawn to his attention when he was presenting his own underdetermination paper.

Incidentally, Sylvain was the one who gave Hempel the shadow and the flag pole counter example (Hempel acknowledges this), but Sylvain said it was a tower in his own example.

Sylvain also brought Kuhn to MIT, when Kuhn was looking to leave Princeton.

Prof. Wray subsequently sent along this interesting link.

ANOTHER UPDATE:   The MIT Department has posted an obituary.

'Self-identification, sex, and gender' and the law in the UK

Sensible and balanced analysis of some of the issues by philosopher Leslie Green (Oxford).  Because it is sensible and balanced, he will surely be vilified by the usual brainless automatons in cyberspace!

Philosopher "uninvited" from refereeing after asking whether publisher was for-profit and would pay for refereeing

Philosopher Charles Blattberg (Montreal) writes:

It seems that I’ve been blacklisted by Springer for having the temerity to ask if I might be paid for reviewing an article submitted to one of their journals. This past Wednesday, I received an email requesting that I review an article for Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. I replied that, before considering it, I’d like to know if the journal is published by a non-profit company and, if not, how much I would be paid for doing the review. Yesterday, an associate editor of the journal wrote to say that she was asked to uninvite me as a potential reviewer.  

Requesting to be paid when the publisher isn’t a non-profit has been a longstanding policy of mine. I’ve never understood why we professors, who are supposed to be so smart, are so willing to be exploited. 

Have other readers had such an experience?

Barnard/Columbia's Frederick Neuhouser interviewed...

...at 3AM.  This is a very interesting interview, although I should note that it is implausible that Nietzsche was positively influenced by Rousseau; the similarities Neuhouser points to--"Both genealogies have 'de-naturalizing' ambitions—they reveal the human-made character of phenomena normally taken to be natural or merely given—and...both emphasize the contingent nature of the developments in question"--reflect ideas and themes important in German philosophy and culture, starting with Herder.  There was no need for Nietzsche to look to Rousseau for such an approach, and no evidence he did so.

An alternative to the APA?

Philosopher Daniel Kaufman (Missouri State) comments on the issue du jour.

In Memoriam: Mary Midgley (1919-2018)

A moral philosopher, perhaps best-known for her work on animal ethics, Professor Midgley spent most of her teaching career at Newcastle University.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.  (Thanks to several readers for sending along news of her passing.)

UPDATE:  An obituary from The Guardian written by philosopher Jane Heal (Cambridge).

Below the fold, some comments from Ian Ground at Newcastle about Professor Midgley:

Interactive timeline of the history of philosophy

Several readers sent along this neat link.