Monday Mini-Heap…

  1. “Despite the efforts of ‘science’, two definitions of death live side by side to this day” — Sharon Kaufman (UCSF) on the complications of death
  2. “Being ‘great’ in the sense of ‘the Great Philosophers’ isn’t really about being good at thinking” — Michael Huemer (Colorado) on why the great philosophers were bad philosophers
  3. “I believe most of these people are genuinely confused about how science works” — Sabine Hossenfelder (Frankfurt) thinks the public–especially climate change deniers–need to hear more from philosophers of science
  4. “To further discussion on philosophical problems that arise in the study of games” — did you know about the Game Philosophy Network?
  5. “Science has not refuted free will, after all. In fact, it actually offers arguments in its defense” — Christian List (LSE) on how “an agent’s future choices can be open at a psychological level even if the underlying physics is deterministic”
  6. Academic Placement Data and Analysis continues its comparisons of philosophy PhD programs — Miami, DePaul, Georgetown, and Arizona are among the recent programs looked at
  7. Academia is “the last bulwark of serious evidence-based discussion” — a profile of Onora O’Neill in Times Higher Ed

Mini-Heap posts appear when 7 or so new items accumulate in the Heap of Links, the ever-growing collection of items from around the web that may be of interest to philosophers. Discussion welcome.

The Heap of Links consists partly of suggestions from readers; if you find something online that you think would be of interest to the philosophical community, please send it in for consideration for the Heap. Thanks!



1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3 years ago

What an absolute load of rubbish that Huemer piece is!Report