Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Richard Marshall interviews David Boucher (Cardiff)...

...at 3:16 AM.

On Frank Ramsey's contributions

An illuminating essay (a kind of precis of her forthcoming book on Ramsey) by philosopher Cheryl Misak (Toronto).

In Memoriam: Jack Macintosh (1934-2020)

A longtime member of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Calgary (which he joined in 1966), he was best-known for his work in the history of philosophy and science, especially on Robert Boyle.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.

(Thanks to Mohan Matthen for calling this to my attention, and Dean Rowan for his year of birth.)

Jonathan Mitchell did not like Tom Stern's "New Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche"

From the review's conclusion:

Overall this volume is idiosyncratic and mixed. Instead of a state-of-the-art snapshot of Nietzsche-studies married with perspicuous introductions and overviews of central texts, many of the contributions lacked philosophical depth. Those that were of a more philosophical bent flirted with obscurity and verbosity, not infrequently straw-manning the so-called analytic [i.e., philosophical] interpretations. That being said, [Sebastian] Gardner's and [Michael] Forster's contributions are worth reading, the latter being a fine example of the required form and standard of content for a contribution to a companion. It was a shame that many of the other contributions fell short of this standard.

(For those interested in Nietzsche scholarship, I say a bit more at my Nietzsche blog.)

Near-death experiences?

Philosopher John Martin Fischer (UC Riverside) debunks them at the NYT; comments are open only today, and John tells me he will try to respond to them.  He would no doubt be grateful if some philosophers weighed in!

Attention Democratic Party: the blog readers have spoken!

So with more than 800 votes since yesterday afternoon, here are the results:

Bernie Sanders:        49%

Elizabeth Warren:    20%

Amy Klobuchar:       12%

Mike Bloomberg:      10%

Pete Buttigieg:          6%

Joe Biden:                 2%

Tom Steyer:               1%

I've notified the DNC that the people who count have spoken! 

Best introductory texts in philosophy of action?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM FEBRUARY 11--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME (INCLUDING CONCURRENCES!)

Continuing with our new series about the best introductory texts in various areas of philosophy, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts in philosophy of action (including, but not limited to, free will).  As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

Britain's UCU calls for more strikes by academic staff (LINK NOW FIXED)

Philosopher Alexander Douglas (St Andrews) is skeptical.

APA extends voting rights to graduate students

Announcement here.   Will this change the APA?  If so, how?   I've no idea!  Thoughts from readers welcome, especially those more engaged with the APA.

Moral grandstanding at the Oscar ceremonies?

Philosophers Justin Tosi (Texas Tech) and Brandon Warmke (Bowling Green) comment.  The discussion is quite nuanced, making it all the more remarkable that it appears on the CNN website!

(Thanks to Alan White for the pointer.)

Not a great piece of "public philosophy": on Strawson and the coronavirus

I've noted with appreciation some of philosopher Regina Rini's past public work, but her debut essay for a new "ethics" series at the TLS is neither a good piece of work nor a good advertisement for philosophy.   The subject is the arrival of the novel coronavirus in Toronto, where Professor Rini teaches (at York University):

Toronto has a large Chinese Canadian community, particularly in the suburb of Markham. When I heard that someone had arrived with coronavirus from China, I admit that my first thought was to avoid restaurants in Markham for a bit.  My second thought was that my first was dangerous, probably more dangerous than the disease itself.

"[M]ore dangerous than the disease itself"?   You can read a vivid description of the condition of the sick for yourself:  those with symptoms (we have no idea what percent of the infected develop symptoms) appear to suffer for two to three weeks before recovering, if they do.  Ignoring that half of new infections are passed on by those who are not themselves symptomatic and that the virus appears to be spread just like regular influenza, Professor Rini assures us that,

Even in the unlikely chance you did catch coronavirus, the statistics suggest your risk of dying is quite small. As of February 4, with around 20,000 cases confirmed in China, 425 of those patients have died. Such a fatality rate is far less than that of Ebola or SARS.

This is an egregious mistake:   all the experts agree that we have no idea what the fatality rate of this new virus is; here's but one example:

Usually, simple math would determine this “case fatality” ratio: divide the total number of deaths by the total number of people infected. In an emerging epidemic, however, both numbers keep changing, and sometimes at different speeds. This makes simple division impossible; you will invariably get it wrong.

For example:  we don't know how many of those infected are asymptomatic, or simply not showing up in official data; we don't know how many are dying of the virus without ever coming to the attention of medical personnel; we don't know how many of the tens of thousands recently infected will die in the coming weeks; and so on.   So this is "public philosophy" predicated on a falsehood.

But even if the mortality rate were 2% (as Professor Rini supposes), that would make it 20 times more fatal than seasonal flu.   Why should anyone be nonchalant about an infection that has a 1 in 50 chance of killing you?  If you want to convince the public that philosophers lack sense, this would be a good way to do it!  Would people drive cars or fly in planes if those were the odds?  

On the experience of being in a "manic" state

Philosopher Paul Lodge (Oxford) comments.

(Thanks to Daniel Kodsi for the pointer.)

On philosophy as "curating"

Interesting reflections from Leslie Green (Oxford/Queen's U), relevant to yesterday's discussion.

(Thanks to Grant Lamond for the pointer.)

Bertrand Russell's "politics of logic"

Philosopher Alexander Klein (McMaster) comments.

Best introductory texts in philosophy of religion?

Continuing with our new series about the best introductory texts in various areas of philosophy, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts in philosophy of religion.  As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

"Confessions of an ex philosopher"

This is making the rounds on social media, and is certainly a gripping read.   The author does underestimate--maybe accurate to his own experience, or maybe because he wasn't very good at teaching either--the impact that teaching philosophy can have on students.  Probably the main contribution most academic philosophers make is through teaching rather than writing, and I would rate that as rather more important than fixing a boat (what "Fabio," the author, now does).  Be that as it may, it's worth a look.   But who is he referring to here (the author has worked mainly in Europe, but with a strong interest it appears in American philosophers like Sellars and Brandom):

I’ve smiled and nodded, and bit my tongue when treated like a shoe-shine boy. But dude, I really don’t give a shit that you’ve published 10 books on German Idealism with a prestigious university press — you’re still an asshole and in other circumstances I’d have told you in no uncertain terms where to shove that USB drive of yours (suspiciously specific, I know).

Is pansexuality obligatory?

Philosopher Robert Gressis (Cal State/Northridge) comments.

Is time an illusion?

Philosophers Tim Maudlin (NYU),  Emily Thomas (Durham) and others discuss.  (I'm still trying to figure out why the moderator mentioned the charlatan Derrida in her opening remarks, but don't let that put you off!)

Richard Marshall interviews Marion Hourdequin (Colorado College)...

...at 3:16 AM.

Harvard geneticist David Reich on the need for candid discussion of the genetic bases of disease, behavior, and cognition

After the failed petition to retract a peer-reviewed article by Nathan Cofnas, a graduate student at Oxford (who replies to some critics here), several readers pointed out that the same (or at least related) subject had been aired in the pages of the NYT by David Reich, a genetics professor at Harvard, back in 2018.   I invite signed comments from informed readers about the Reich essay.  (This old essay by philosopher Ned Block is also useful background here. I don't see that Reich is making the mistakes Block identifies, but I am happy to be corrected.)

UPDATE:  See also this follow-up piece by Reich, also in the NYT.  (Thanks to Jerry Dworkin for the pointer.)

Cover art on philosophy books

Reader Andy Hudson writes:

I wonder if you might consider a blog post on this subject. I ask because I was passing a secondhand bookshop today, in the window of which Galen Strawson’s “Selves” was displayed; I bought it partly on the strength of the beautiful cover. Conversely, I have always been disappointed and surprised that seminal works like “Naming and Necessity” present such a dismal appearance to the world, at least in their UK editions. All a bit trivial, I realise, but I’d be interested to know (a) how much effort authors invest in this aspect of publication, (b) whether it’s thought to have any significant impact on sales, (c) whether the author or the publisher takes the lead, (d) whether securing permissions is time-consuming, expensive, etc., etc.

I can report my own experience, including with my latest book.   I typically have the publisher give me various choices, and then I choose from the ones they offer (or, in the case of my latest book [Moral Psychology with Nietzsche, advertised in the left column], my wife and daughter chose the cover).   Publishers typically have designers on staff who can offer various options--that also moots the issue of "securing permissions."   But I know others in philosophy who spend considerable time and effort in selecting their own designs or art work for the covers.

Comments are open for reader responses.

UPDATE:   If you want to include links, do not format them just include the URL, it will automatically turn into a link.  Do not include punctuation after the URL or Typepad will format that too, which ruins the link.

"Epistemological Letters" recovered

This will be of interest to historians and philosophers of science.

"How Maths Changed Philosophy"

A podcast with Silvia Jonas (Munich).

Linguist/philosopher McCready raising funds to sue Japanese government for recognition of same-sex marriage

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--UPDATED (READERS SHOULD CONSIDER SUPPORTING THIS JUST CAUSE)

Elin McCready, a linguist and philosopher at Gakuin University in Tokyo, is also a trans woman, still married to her wife of twenty years.   We noted Professor McCready's case briefly before, but now she and her wife are raising funds in order to sue the Japanese government, which has recognized Professor McCready's change of gender in most contexts but will not recognize her continued marriage!  Perhaps this can be the case to bring legalized same-sex marriage to Japan?

UPDATE:  On Twitter, Professor McCready offers a useful clarification of the legal issue at stake:  "the government will not fully recognize my transition because doing so would require recognizing same-sex marriage (or forcibly dissolving my marriage), a tension in the law which we are suing to try to resolve."

New Books in January

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

Interpreting Bergson:  Critical Essays edited by Alexander Lefebvre & Nils F. Schott (Cambridge University Press, 2020).

An Ethical Guidebook to the Zombie Apocalypse:  How to Keep Your Brain without Losing Your Heart by Bryan Hall (Bloomsbury Academic, 2020).

Free Will, Responsibility, and Crime:  An Introduction by Ken M. Levy (Routledge, 2020).

The Evolution of Science:  Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene by Jürgen Renn (Princeton University Press, 2020).

The Palgrave Handbook of the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures edited by Noel Carroll, Laura T. DiSumma & Shawn Loht (Palgrave MacMillan, 2019).

How to be a Failure and Still Live Well:  A Philosophy by Beverley Clark (Bloomsbury Academic, 2020).

Saul Kripke discusses Wittgenstein...

...at IAITV.

Best introductory texts to ancient Greek and Roman philosophy (or particular figures in ancient philosophy)?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JANUARY 28--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME

Continuing with our new series about the best introductory texts in various areas of philosophy, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts to ancient Greek and Roman philosophy (or particular figures in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy [e.g., introductions to Plato, Aristotle, Cicero etc.]).  As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

Wilfrid Sellars, a personal recollection...

...from his second wife, who survived him (she is now deceased).  It recounts how they met, some aspects of his career, and his death due to alcoholism.   It also includes some of her slightly odd metaphysical reflections, those can be passed over (she was no naturalist, Sellarsian or otherwise).

"In the shadow of Auschwitz"

Philosopher Jason Stanley comments.

Conscientious objection to providing medical services?

Philosopher Jerry Dworkin discusses.

Philosopher Amia Srinivasan (Oxford) profiled...

...in the Financial Times.

Richard Marshall interviews Liam Murphy (NYU)...

...at 3:16 AM.  This is well-said (including its description of the positivist view):

All sensible views treat matters of brute social/political fact as partly determining law’s content but some, the nonpositivists, have it that moral judgment is inevitably required in interpreting legal materials to figure out what the law says. Others, the positivists, have it that though moral judgment may well be needed if a judge is to make a decision, it is not required in order to determine what the law (already, before the decision) says; once your interpretation draws on independent moral judgment you are making law rather than finding out its content. I should say that the most important nonpositivist, my late colleague Ronald Dworkin, in his final writings on the topic abandoned what I just attributed to “all sensible views.” He concluded that legal interpretation was moral judgment all the way up and down—that is, matters of social/political fact do not determine any part of law’s content unless there is moral reason for that. I think this kind of view denies the reality of law as a normative order distinct from morality and is mistaken.

Dworkin is certainly the best-known nonpositivist, the one who did the most to deform honest discussion of issues in legal philosophy over the last fifty years; I doubt he's the most important, but that's another story.

In Memoriam: David Efird (1974-2020)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JANUARY 10--UPDATED

I'm especially sorry to report the untimely death of Dr. Efird, a philosopher of religion and Anglican priest, who had taught philosophy at the University of York for nearly twenty years.  I will post links to memorial notices as they appear.

UPDATE:   The York memorial notice is here.

Best introductory texts in philosophy of art/aesthetics?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JANUARY 22--ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WELCOME

Continuing with our new series about the best introductory texts in various areas of philosophy, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts in philosophy of art or aesthetics. As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

ADDENDUM:   Suggestions for introductions to specific art forms (e.g., literature, film, theater) are also welcome here.

Survey for philosophy PhDs only on moral decision-making

Stephanie Brown, a philosophy and psychology double major at Williams College, is "completing a psychology senior thesis on moral psychology, and one of the areas we are studying is how familiarity with philosophy impacts moral decision making." She, and her supervisor Professor Jeremy Cone, would like philosophy PhDs to respond to the following survey (Prof. Cone confirms all IRB requirements have been met).

This survey takes 3-5 minutes, and completing the survey provides you with a 5% chance of winning a 100 dollar Amazon gift card. We would greatly appreciate your help by participating in this survey, as I am sure you can understand how difficult it is to find individuals with philosophical expertise. We are ultimately looking for 100 people to complete this survey

Link to survey:

https://williamscollege.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3m91tVNizQLmjl3

Jimmy Swaggart and Mark Alfano: when the morally self-righteous are wicked

Philosopher Daniel Kaufman (Missouri State) comments.

In Memoriam: Emanuele Severino (1929-2020)

An Italian philosopher, better known in Europe than in the Anglophone world, he was a self-described "neo-Parmenidean".  There is an obituary in Italian here.

And now: Rousseau on Twitter...

...with help from politcal theorist Boris Litvin (Stetson).

UPDATE:  And a skeptical response from a Rousseau scholar on Twitter.

Malik on Scruton...

...at The Guardian.  Of the various criticisms of Scruton, this seems to me the most measured and strongest version I've seen in the popular media.  (Here's an unmeasured critical comment:  a number of years ago, I picked up the new edition of Scruton's purported critique of "new left" thinkers.  It was sophomoric, almost beyond belief in how silly it was.   The contrast with his work in aesthetics was stunning.   Obviously, his political prejudices had a bad effect on his philosophical judgment.)

(Thanks to Phil Gasper for calling the Malik piece to my attention.)

Best introductory texts in philosophy of mind?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JANUARY 16--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME

Continuing with our new series about the best introductory texts in various areas of philosophy, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts in philosophy of mind. As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

Peer-reviewed journal publishes a peer-reviewed paper some people don't like...

...so it's time for a petition, which, after 24 hours and despite being linked from the Daily Snooze this morning, has only some two dozen signatories.  (UPDATE:  after 48 hours, 48 signatories!)  It was launched by famed Twitter tough guy Mark Alfano (Macquarie), seen here threatening the paper's author, graduate student Nathan Cofnas (Oxford) (says Mafia Mark to Mr. Cofnas:   "You're about to learn why people generally avoid fucking with me").   Good to get confirmation that not only is there no norm against criticizing graduate students for their public acts and statements (which no one, other than graduate students on Twitter, believed of course), but there apparently isn't even a norm against launching a petition against the "vulnerable" and threatening them Mafia-style!

The petition is being ignored because it is so obviously foolish.  I'll give the last word on that to philosopher David Wallace (Pittsburgh), quite possibly the only adult who comments reguarly at the Daily Snooze:

Here we go again.

In the first place, the petition’s description of the paper doesn’t look factually accurate. It claims that the paper (i) “argues that the best explanation of differences in IQ scores between racial and ethnic groups is genetics”, and (ii) “completely neglects the role played by environmental injustice, housing segregation, and related forms of discrimination in producing these differences.”

As for (i), the paper’s discussion of the science argues only that it is a scientifically serious possibility that racial IQ differences have a genetic component, not that it’s cut-and-dried that it does (far less that the difference is 100% due to genetics). The section of the paper summarizing the science ends “As of now, there is nothing that would indicate that it is particularly unlikely that race differences will turn out to have a substantial genetic component.” Furthermore, that conclusion (which occurs 6 pages into a 24-page paper, at the end of a 3-page discussion of the science) is all that the author needs, because the main question the paper asks is whether we should actively prevent research on the question, and to make that an interesting question we only need to know that a genetic component isn’t scientifically unserious, not that it’s scientifically proven. (And, I should add, the author’s all-things-considered defense of allowing research on the topic is fairly nuanced, and gives a pretty sympathetic hearing to the arguments against.)

Preposterous philosophical views: the poll results

With more than 1300 votes in last Friday's poll, here are the results for "most" to "least" preposterous philosophical view:

1. External world skepticism  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Realism about possible worlds  loses to External world skepticism by 621–597

3. Panpsychism  loses to External world skepticism by 640–574, loses to Realism about possible worlds by 619–599

4. Libertarianism about free will  loses to External world skepticism by 832–366, loses to Panpsychism by 832–366

5. Grounding is a real and unitary relation  loses to External world skepticism by 804–285, loses to Libertarianism about free will by 587–444

6. Non-naturalist moral realism  loses to External world skepticism by 866–328, loses to Grounding is a real and unitary relation by 515–499

I suspect the results tell us more about which of these views are and are not currently fashionable than about which are really the most preposterous!   (Lots of non-naturalist moral realists around today, for example, very few possible-world realists and external-world skeptics.)

A report from Australia about the bushfires ravaging the country

Michael Matthews, an Australian in Sydney and editor of the newsletter of The Society for the History and Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching, shares a personal account on p. 3 here.   (Thanks to Michael Ruse for the pointer.)

Rousseau on impeachment...

...with some help from David Lay Williams (DePaul).

Which currently fashionable philosophical view is the most preposterous?

Regarding my quip about panpsychism the other day, philosopher Mohan Matthen (Toronto) writes: "Goff anticipates your objection, which is the first listed in his SEP entry, under the title, 'Objections to Panpsychism: The Incredulous Stare.' I happen to think that the Incredulous Stare holds water though, because it’s beyond crazy to argue a priori for a contingent proposition, and beyond even that to argue that panpsychism is necessary."

"Beyond crazy" usually doesn't slow philosophers down, especially in the modern academy, where there are professional incentives to make sure every possible position in logical space is occupied.  The only way to settle this matter is with a poll, of course.  So please rank order these philosophical positions from most to least preposterous.

UPDATE:  Philosopher Michael Strevens (NYU) writes:   "I think that panpsychism is likely to come out looking much better if you let everything vote, not just people."   Good point!  Same goes for letting possible people in other possible worlds vote!

Speaking of people defamed by the media, let's not forget the horrendous treatment of Yale PhD student Sarah Braasch

We've noted before the raw deal Ms. Braasch got in the media in the misnamed "Napping while Black" story.  Particularly striking is that her exoneration by Yale from the charges of racially motivated harassment received almost no media coverage, even though the whole alleged story was supposed to be about racially motivated harassment and calling of the police.  As law professor Michael Simkovic put it, in writing about the Lessig defamation lawsuit against the NYT:

[T]he cartoonish fictionalized version of reality that some newspapers attempt to pass off as critical information is in reality little more than a sadistic form of entertainment--character assassination as sport. Worse than entertainment which acknowledges that it is fictional, exaggerated "news" uses real people as its sensationalized villains and callously hurts them in the process.

That is exactly what happened to Ms. Braasch.

Panpsychism makes "Scientific American"!

What's next, intelligent design?  (OK, bad joke.)

(Thanks to Phil Gasper for the pointer.)

Richard Marshall interviews Michael Della Rocca (Yale)...

...at 3:16 AM.  

Six philosophers win NEH Fellowships

They are:  Dorit Bar-On (Connecticut), Michael Jacovides (Purdue), Allison Kuklok (St. Michael's College), Gabriel Mendlow (Michigan [primary appointment in the law school]), Nathanael Stein (Florida State), and David Stern (Iowa).  A good year for philosophers in the NEH competition!

Philosophy, logic and clear thinking

Timothy Williamson is in favor!