• by Ed Kazarian

    There are two important posts up today elsewhere in the philosophical blogopshere that deserve your attention—both of which raise the question of how those of us in the profession at large can support those members who, because of activism or simply their social position, are vulnerable to various official and non-official forms of retaliation. 

    Above the fold, I will simply point readers to the Open Letter of Support for "for people in our profession who are suffering various trials either as victims of harassment or as supporters of victims" published on DailyNous by John Greco, Don Howard, Michael Rea, Jonathan Kvanvig, and Mark Murphy: and to NewAPPS emeritus blogger Eric Schliesser's more concrete suggestion about how to address the retaliatory deployment of legal means against complainants.  Both pieces deserve to be read and reflected upon.

    In what follows, I'll say a bit more about my sense of the importance of both pieces, and the larger phenomenon of retaliation against those contesting the inequitable state of the profession.

    (more…)

  • By  Roberta Millstein

    I just got back from the Philosophy of Science Association meeting in Chicago, held in conjunction with the History of Science Society.  My co-chair Holly Andersen and I knew we had better-than-ever attendance for the 5th PSA Women's Caucus Breakfast, but after counting the names on the sign-in sheet, I can report that we had 83 attendees! (mostly women, plus a few welcome supporters).  We didn't get to all of the items on our packed agenda, but there was some serious energy in the room, and hopefully we can really get things done in the next two years.  Thanks again to the Minnesota Center for the Philosophy of Science and individual donors for sponsoring.

    I don't know if anyone else noticed (and maybe I shouldn't point it out), but Saturday was a good day for philosophy of biology.  Helen Longino is finishing her term as PSA President, to be succeeded by Ken Waters; Helen also won the PSA Women's Caucus Prize for Feminist Philosophy for her recent book, Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality, while Elliott Sober won the Hempel Award.  Congrats to all.

    My own session, "Beyond the Lab Experiment," with Sharon Crasnow, Eric Desjardins, and Emily Parke (ably chaired by Chris Eliot) was one of the best I've ever participated in.  At the end of it, I realized that all four papers sought to make positive contributions; none was a critique (not that I am against critique — I think critique is important and have done it myself — but sometimes it's nice to make forward progress without having to trash what came before).  We had a half hour at the end for general discussion, and the audience used it appropriately, probing connections between the four talks that I was certainly too bleary-eyed to see.  And speakers responded thoughtfully and openly to suggestions.  It was a really positive experience and I got a lot out of it.

    It was also announced that this was the largest PSA meeting ever.  I think we still have work to do to increase the diversity of topics and attendees, but I know that work has been done in that area and that more is planned.  The PSA is looking healthy.

  • Leo Kadanoff making an argument directed at Bob Wald using the example of Dumb Holes that Radin Dardashti, Karim Thebault and I had just presented on. I wonder if Wald and Kadanoff have such rich conversations very often in the hallways of their own department. Who says philosophers and scientists can't engage with each other? (And PSA in Chicago FTW!)

     

  • The following is a guest post by Shelley Tremain:
     
    As deadlines for philosophy faculty positions approach and pass, members of search committees should bear in mind how structural, institutional, disciplinary, material, and other factors have marginalized many philosophers, reproducing the profession and discipline as homogeneous and conformist along axes of power such as disability, race, sexuality, nationality, language, and gender; in short, a hostile environment for many of us. Disabled philosophers have been virtually excluded from the profession and discipline. In my introduction to the Fall 2013 issue of Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ, vol. 33, no. 4 http://dsq-sds.org/issue/view/108) whose theme was Improving Feminist Philosophy and Theory by Taking Account of Disability, I estimated that 4% of philosophy faculty in North America are disabled. This figure was based upon past surveys conducted at a couple of APA conferences. Clearly, that estimate was too generous: according to recent membership surveys conducted by the APA and CPA, less than 2% and 1% (respectively) of philosophy faculty (any rank) are disabled.  
     
    In the DSQ intro, I identify many of the factors that have shaped the ableism of the discipline and profession. Entitled "Introducing Feminist Philosophy of Disability," that article can be accessed from the link above or read here: https://www.academia.edu/5812065/Introducing_Feminist_Philosophy_of_Disability. I also discuss the marginalization and exclusion of disabled philosophers from the profession in "Disabling Philosophy" which appeared in the April issue of The Philosopher's Magazine. That article can be read here: https://www.academia.edu/6651947/Disabling_Philosophy.
  • by Ed Kazarian
     
    There’s an important piece up at Inside Higher Ed today about a developing debate concerning whether universities should offer blanket indemnity to students who file internal harassment and assault complaints, as they regularly do for faculty and other employees. While the IHE piece is a news story, and so doesn’t take a  position on the matter, it seems to me that the arguments in favor of extending automatic indemnification to student complainants are very strong.
     
    In what follows, I'll explain why I think so.

    (more…)

  • By: Samir Chopra

    A couple of years ago, after reading Neil Grossexcellent biography of Richard Rorty, I sent him a short note of appreciation, telling him how much I enjoyed his book. Gross wrote back; he was clearly pleasantly surprised to have received my email.

    I mention this correspondence because it is an instance of an act that I ought to indulge in far more often but almost never do: writing to let an author–especially an academic one!–know you enjoyed his or her work.

    Most academic writing is read by only a few readers: some co-workers in a related field of research, some diligent graduate students, perhaps the odd deluded, excessively indulgent family member. (I am not counting those unfortunate spouses, like mine, who have been pressed into extensive editorial service for unfinished work. These worthies deserve our unstinting praise and are rightfully generously acknowledged in our works.) Many, many academic trees fall in the forest with no one to hear them.

    This state of affairs holds for many other kinds of writers, of course. Online, even if we know someone is reading our writing we might not know whether they thought it was any good; we might note the number of hits on our blogs but remain unaware of whether our words resonated with any of our readers. The unfortunate converse is true; comments spaces tell us, loudly and rudely, just how poor our arguments are, how pointless our analysis, how ineffective our polemicizing. There is no shortage of critique, not at all.

    It is a commonplace point to direct at academic writers that their work needs to be made relevant and accessible. Fair enough. I think though, that our tribe would greatly benefit from some positive reader feedback when these standards–besides the usual scholarly ones–are met. Academics often write to one another, indicating their interest in a common field of study, the value of their correspondent's writing, and sometimes asking for copies of papers. To these existent epistolary relationships I suggest we add the merely appreciative note: I enjoyed your writing and here is why.

    These notes are not mere acts of kindness, a dispensing of charity as it were. They encourage and sustain a useful species of human activity. They create an atmosphere, I think, conducive to scholarship and to further striving toward excellence. They make a writer want more of the same.

    I know we're all busy, but the next time you read something you like, see if you can send the writer a little thank-you note. You don't have to do it all the time, but sometimes wouldn't hurt.

    Go ahead: reach out and touch someone.

    Note: This post was originally published–under the same title–at samirchopra.com. As I noted then,  I was prompted to write it by receiving an email from a doctoral student at Cambridge who had read some of my work and found it useful. As I said then, "The almost absurd pleasure I received on reading his email was a wistful reminder of just how much we crave this sort of contact."

  • by Eric Schwitzgebel

    here!

    This mega-list of about 360 recommendations is compiled from the lists I’ve been rolling out on The Splintered Mind over the past several weeks. Thirty-four professional philosophers and two prominent science fiction / speculative fiction (SF) authors with graduate training in philosophy each contributed a list of ten personal favorite “philosophically interesting” SF works, with brief “pitches” for each recommended work.

    I have compiled two mega-lists, organized differently. One mega-list is organized by contributor, so that you can see all of Scott Bakker’s recommendations, then all of Sara Bernstein’s recommendations, etc. It might be useful to skim through to see whose tastes you seem to share and then look at what other works that person recommends.

    The other mega-list is organized by author (or director or TV series), to highlight authors (directors / TV shows) who were most often recommended by the list contributors.

    The most recommended authors were:

    Recommended by 11 contributors:

    • Ursula K. Le Guin

    Recommended by 8:

    • Philip K. Dick

    (more…)

  • Discussions of European identity, and the history mostly revolve round two points of reference. One goes back to the origin of modern usage of Europe and European in the eight century around the struggle between Christian Franks and Muslim Moors, and then round the Frankish king Charlemagne who received the title of Emperor of the Romans, an event which questions the claim of the eastern and Greek Roman Empire, Byzantium, to continue the legacy of Rome there is an obvious religious focus here, which is Catholic Roman Christians as against Orthodox Greek Christians, and a Christian struggle against Islam. In Charlemagne's reign the struggle to Christianise pagans is still very much an issue in northern Europe. So this is the Europe which is Catholic Christian, Frankish, and western Roman.

    The other point of reference, one thousand years later, is the Enlightenment, so an origin in cosmopolitanism, rationalism, ethical universalism, secularism, and science is suggested. The Enlightenment does have a historical and geographical location in Europe, and particular concentrations within Europe. The most important focus for the cosmopolitan rationalist understanding of Europe is Königsberg, though purely Königsberg as the city of Kant. Kant is generally understood through his links to the west, to Scottish Enlightenment, the Enlightened despotism of Frederick the Great in Berlin, the Swiss-French Rousseau, and so on. Frederick II, King of Prussia was ruing over Kant's location in East Prussia, but from Brandenburg and within the boundaries of the new Rome (in practice the German Empire) of Charlemagne.

    (more…)

  • This is a guest post by Mitchell Aboulafia.  It's a bit long, but it's worth reading in its entirety.  I don't necessarily endorse any particular part of it, but I think it makes some excellent points, especially about lack of transparency.  This feature in particular is, in my view, not tolerable given the enormous influence the report has; an influence that is aided, in no small part, by the very cooperation of the group of evaluators that the letter is addressed to.

    Mtichell's post comes, in its entirety, after the break:

    (more…)

  • Lingered to provide a place to comment freely, 
    Let fall upon its back the scorn of other bloggers, 
    Deleted a few comments, tried to repel the creeps,  
    But seeing that it had really turned to crap, 
    Made one last post, turned out the lights, and fell asleep.