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!


Use innovative tools to teach clear and courageous thinking
Notify of

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

What an absolute load of rubbish that Huemer piece is!