The following is a guest post by Amy Olberding, professor of philosophy at the University of Oklahoma, in response to the discussion of Sam Liao’s post here, “How Is This Course Intro to Philosophy?” A version of it first appeared at Feminist Philosophers. (more…)
Humility and Conviction in Public Life, an interdisciplinary endeavor at the University of Connecticut directed by philosopher Michael P. Lynch and funded by the John Templeton Foundation, has awarded a total of $2 million to ten scholars engaged in various projects to improve public discourse. (more…)
One of the benefits of thought experiments and hypothetical examples is that, since the people with which they’re populated aren’t real, you can relentlessly discuss your way through the logical space without having to worry about how they’ll take what you’re saying about them. Your conversation might justifiably sound a bit different, I’d think, if your interlocuto..
As the new commenting system (described here) is put into place this weekend, piece by piece, the commenting on Daily Nous may be a bit buggy. This may mean some comments getting lost, some going right through on the new system without my moderation, and some being queued for moderation as on the old system. Please bear with us.
The ‘reply’ function and comment ‘..
Jon Cogburn (LSU) has run a little experiment. For months he and others have been unable to comment at Daily Nous. Long thought to be the result of my tyrannical and heavy-handed moderation, this problem has now been traced by Cogburn to Askimet, a spam-filtering service used by many blogs, including DN. Apparently, in some cases, having one of your comments marked ..
Occasionally a comment makes its way onto Daily Nous, or into the Daily Nous inbox, along the following lines: “I find it strange that no one seems to be discussing some important topic or defending some important thesis, T. Is it because the majority of philosophers, P, find T philosophically uninteresting? Or is the moderator censoring T? Or is it because P is too..
At Daily Nous we toil to provide you, dear readers, with an exceptional philosoblogospheric experience. There have been a number of changes to the site over the course of its existence, and a complete overhaul in October of last year. I bet none of you remembers the site looking like this: (more…)
I have received the following three complaints and would like to know if the problems they’re about are widespread.
(a) You cannot reply to specific comments (such that your reply appears beneath the comment to which you are replying). To reply to a specific comment, move your mouse cursor over the comment you wish to reply to and a reply link should appear next ..
A gem of a comment from Amy Olberding on the post earlier this week about expanding the philosophical canon is worth excerpting:
…let me just explain how these sorts of conversations read to me and how, it seems to me, they repeat endlessly. On my most cynical days, I think we can dispense with any further conversations about including non-western traditions. F..
The discussion of journal practices is continuing, but, at the suggestion of Tom Dougherty, I am posting this as a place to gather “frequent reasons for rejection” of articles. Here is his comment from the other thread:
If many of the papers getting desk-rejected by journals are rejected for common reasons, then I wonder if it might be in everyone’s interests for..
Since Daily Nous has been getting a bit more traffic over the past few days I’d like to draw people’s attention to the comments policy. Check it out, please. In general, the idea is to try to keep the comments section worth reading, even for people who haven’t participated in it. For some further thoughts from me about moderating comments here, see this. Thank you f..
I am grateful that people take the time and make the effort to comment on the posts here at Daily Nous. I try to post about news and issues that are important to or of interest to other philosophers, and the discussions that the posts generate is one way of gauging success at that. Some of these discussions have been informative and helpful, occasionally provocative..
Welcome back to Ought Experiment! We had ourselves quite the weekend, didn’t we? Well hang on to your armchairs, folks, because apparently it’s time for a Very Special Episode. After the heated conversation about professional cliques, a certain blog editor wrote in with a question about the role and consequences of anonymity in online philosophical discussion:
Dear Ambiguous Commentator,
Hi there. I don’t think we’ve met, but I appreciate your interest in the blog and I’m flattered that you have taken the time to share your thoughts. However, I read your comment and I am sorry to report that I won’t be publishing it. It’s not that I don’t want to hear from you, or that I don’t think your opinion matters. It’s just that I..