Mini-Heap

By
. 4

New links…

  1. Why does philosophy have a history? — a lecture by Michael Rosen at the Royal Institute of Philosophy
  2. The inaugural addresses delivered by the first ten women Presidents of the Aristotelian Society — now available in a free virtual issue
  3. How philosophy of science can “promote dialogue and mutual understanding” in a polarized, conflict-ridden, and distrustful society? — Kevin Elliott surveys the ways
  4. “The most profound worldview shattering insights in modern human history haven’t come from philosophy… They’ve come from science” — Rachel Powell talks with Sean Carroll about evolution, contingency, morality, extraterrestrials, and more
  5. “People rarely change important beliefs in a single conversation,” so what can we do that “increases the parties’ willingness to speak to each other again”? — Julia Minson provides advice for “constructive disagreement”
  6. “When we look at the essential problems with plagiarism that make it impermissible in an educational context, we find that AI appropriation has exactly the same problems” — Mark Robert Taylor on professors’ obligation to restrict AI in student writing
  7. Philosophy Talk, the long-running philosophy show, has made its past episodes free for anyone to access — there are over 600 of them

Mini-Heap posts usually appear when several new items accumulate in the Heap of Links, a collection of items from around the web that may be of interest to philosophers. 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. Thank you.
Previous edition.

guest

4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Puzzled
Puzzled
3 months ago

Maybe the full paper of #6 makes things clearer, but I continue to be surprised how often philosophers seem to base their analysis of plagiarism on the concept of taking (“appropriating”) something. This way of thinking doesn’t handle self-plagiarism or unintentional plagiarism well, for example. And it struggles to differentiate plagiarism and copyright infringement. Instead you can look at plagiarism in terms of misleading the audience, in particular doing so in a context where this causes significant problems for the audience (eg not being able to assess learning accurately).

1
Reply
Mark Robert Taylor
Mark Robert Taylor
Reply to  Puzzled
3 months ago

Thanks for the comment. I agree that plagiarism does not depend on the concept of taking something. Here’s what I have to say on that point in the full version:

This trio of reasons represents the core of what is wrong with allowing plagiarism and AI appropriation. Some, however, will want to add that plagiarism is also a kind of theft. The student has stolen her source’s words by failing to cite it. But this is not essential to what makes plagiarism wrong. Educators acknowledge the possibility of self-plagiarism when students submit the same written assignment for more than one course, yet, in such cases, the original author has clearly consented, and therefore it is not theft. Something similar can be said about essays which are purchased. So, though plagiarism is sometimes wrong because it is also theft, there are many cases where it is not theft. (Even in this ambiguity, however, AI appropriation has parallels: there is a heated debate about whether developers of AI have stolen from the writers and creators whose work AI has been trained on (Brittain 2023)).

I hope that helps (as you suggested it might).

5
Reply
praymont
praymont
2 months ago

Chicago Tribune article on philosophy’s value for critical thinking by Kenneth Seeskin, professor emeritus of philosophy and the Philip M. and Ethel Klutznick professor of Jewish civilization at Northwestern University.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/01/11/opinion-ai-philosophy-human-reason-nuance/?share=p1uon1imti0ciwwnnaio

2
Reply
praymont
praymont
2 months ago

“Now and Then” — Thomas Nagel’s review of Samuel Scheffler’s *One Life to Lead: The Mysteries of Time and the Goods of Attachment* (London Review of Books, 48[2], Feb 5, 2026). https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n02/thomas-nagel/now-and-then

1
Reply