Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    byrd_nick

    + friends - friends
    65,916 link karma
    8,292 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] A (new) Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy Blog byrd_nick 1 points ago in HistoryofIdeas

    Overview

    From Caleb Cohoe: "This new site features information and resources for teaching and scholarship in ancient philosophy. It currently includes an ancient philosophy events calendar (http://endoxa.blog/ancient-philosophy-calendar/) and a listing of journals that publish ancient philosophy, including submission policies and all available information about acceptance rates, review times, etc.: http://endoxa.blog/2018/10/09/ancient-philosophy-journals/. The site is also organizing an Ancient Philosophy Paper Drafts Exchange, which can read about and sign up for here: http://endoxa.blog/2018/10/08/ancient-philosophy-paper-drafts-exchange/"

    [–] A (New) Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy Blog: Endoxa byrd_nick 2 points ago in AcademicPhilosophy

    Overview

    From Caleb Cohoe: "This new site features information and resources for teaching and scholarship in ancient philosophy. It currently includes an ancient philosophy events calendar (http://endoxa.blog/ancient-philosophy-calendar/) and a listing of journals that publish ancient philosophy, including submission policies and all available information about acceptance rates, review times, etc.: http://endoxa.blog/2018/10/09/ancient-philosophy-journals/. The site is also organizing an Ancient Philosophy Paper Drafts Exchange, which can read about and sign up for here: http://endoxa.blog/2018/10/08/ancient-philosophy-paper-drafts-exchange/"

    [–] A (New) Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy Blog: Endoxa byrd_nick 1 points ago in philosophy

    Overview

    From Caleb Cohoe: "This new site features information and resources for teaching and scholarship in ancient philosophy. It currently includes an ancient philosophy events calendar (http://endoxa.blog/ancient-philosophy-calendar/) and a listing of journals that publish ancient philosophy, including submission policies and all available information about acceptance rates, review times, etc.: http://endoxa.blog/2018/10/09/ancient-philosophy-journals/. The site is also organizing an Ancient Philosophy Paper Drafts Exchange, which can read about and sign up for here: http://endoxa.blog/2018/10/08/ancient-philosophy-paper-drafts-exchange/"

    [–] A free, online conference about philosophy of neuroscience, this Friday and Saturday (5th-6th). byrd_nick 2 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago) in AcademicPhilosophy

    EXPLAINER

    Basics - Just as the Neural Mechanisms webinars, the conference will be hosted by Cisco WebEx (more details HERE).

    Joining a live session – Right before each session, speakers and participants will receive on their email an invitation to join a web-conference. Conferences will be hosted by Cisco WebEx, a professional software made available by the University of Turin. All you need to join is to download a browser plugin. The download link is provided along with the invitation to join the conferences. For technical details concerning the software, please visit the troubleshooting page.

    Watching the video afterwards – Each session will be recorded. Provided that the speaker gives her consent, the presentation of the paper (without the Q&A sessions) will be published on the Neural Mechanisms YouTube channel.

    [–] How to gain scientific training in a philosophy PhD program byrd_nick 1 points ago in AcademicPhilosophy

    Summary

    One of my favorite researchers is Chandra Sripada. Sripada is a professor of both philosophy and psychiatry. My research also crosses the humanities-science divide(s). So, I often wonder how to replicate a multi-disciplinary career like Sripada's. A look at Sripada's CV reveals a career path involving multiple advanced degrees, internships/residencies, etc. If you are like me, then you (or your partner) might want a more efficient path to a career. In this post, I share advice about how to obtain multi-disciplinary training from philosophy graduate programs.

    [–] Responding to Morally Flawed Historical Philosophers and Philosophies byrd_nick 4 points ago in philosophy

    Intro/abstract

    Many historically-influential philosophers had profoundly wrong moral views or behaved very badly. Aristotle thought women were “deformed men” and that some people were slaves “by nature.” Descartes had disturbing views about non-human animals. Hume and Kant were racists. Hegel disparaged Africans. Nietzsche despised sick people. Mill condoned colonialism. Fanon was homophobic. Frege was anti-Semitic; Heidegger was a Nazi. Schopenhauer was sexist. Rousseau abandoned his children. Wittgenstein beat his young students. Unfortunately, these examples are just a start.[1]

    These philosophers are famous for their intellectual accomplishments, yet they display serious moral or intellectual flaws in their beliefs or actions. At least, some of their views were false, ultimately unjustified and, perhaps, harmful.

    How should we respond to brilliant-but-flawed philosophers from the past?[2] Here we explore the issues, asking questions and offering few answers. Any insights gained here might be applicable to contemporary imperfect philosophers, scholars in other fields,[3] and people in general

    [–] I have a PhD in cognitive psychology and I’m a couple of years into a tenure track position, but I want to be where the philosophers are. byrd_nick 4 points ago in AcademicPhilosophy

    If this was me, I’d do this: 1. Go to some events hosted by the department of philosophy (colloquial, conferences, etc.) to build some relationships. 2. Sit in on some classes in the department of philosophy. 3. Look for grants that pay some of professors salary to complete coursework in another discipline (this one allows humanities professors to study science, but perhaps there are grants that do the reverse; I don’t know).

    Also, I’m usually happy to discuss online or via email, if there interests align. :)

    [–] Some philosophers think that it is better never to have been born. Here’s an objection to that anti-natalist view as well as counter-objections. byrd_nick 2 points ago in philosophy

    Summary

    The objection is that the anti-natalist’s argument relies on a faulty premise (that existence and non-existence are comparable). An example of a counter-objection from the discussion is an argument by analogy (e.g., if consciousness and unconsciousness are comparable, then existence and non-existence are comparable).

    Thanks to u/orangeyf3 for starting the discussion!

    [–] Underdetermination in science: What it is and why we should care - Turnbull - 2018 - Philosophy Compass - Wiley Online Library byrd_nick 1 points ago in philosophy

    Abstract

    The underdetermination of scientific theory choice by evidence is a familiar but multifaceted concept in the philosophy of science. I answer two pressing questions about underdetermination: “What is underdetermination?” and “Why should we care about underdetermination?” To answer the first question, I provide a general definition of underdetermination, identify four forms of underdetermination, and discuss major criticisms of each form. To answer the second question, I then survey two common uses of underdetermination in broader arguments against scientific realism and in support of the use of values in scientific theory choice. I conclude that philosophers should also care about underdetermination because it impacts scientists in their practice.

    [–] The philosophy of whether being morally responsibility for behavior requires some kind of awareness of our behavior (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) byrd_nick 2 points ago in philosophy

    Intro

    Philosophers usually acknowledge two individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for a person to be morally responsible for an action, i.e., susceptible to be praised or blamed for it: a control condition (also called freedom condition) and an epistemic condition (also called knowledge, cognitive, or mental condition). The first condition has to do with whether the agent possessed an adequate degree of control or freedom in performing the action, whereas the second condition is concerned with whether the agent’s epistemic or cognitive state was such that she can properly be held accountable for the action and its consequences. While the first condition prompts us to ask “was this person acting freely when she did A?”, the second condition prompts us to ask “was this person aware of what she was doing (of its consequences, moral significance, etc.)?”[1]

    The standard assumption used to be that the philosophically interesting condition was the one concerned with freedom and that, in comparison, the epistemic condition (henceforth, EC) was relatively straightforward and unproblematic. However, in the last twenty years or so it has become patent that the EC presents certain unique challenges for a correct understanding of moral responsibility—even distinctive skeptical threats to its possibility (see sect. 2)—quite independently of the issue of freedom and determinism. The main purposes of this entry are, first, to outline in general terms what the EC is—what its requirements are and what kinds of awareness are involved (sect. 1)—and, second, to present the main competing positions concerning the interpretation of those requirements and the different ways of satisfying them (sects. 2–3).

    [–] People can be responsible for their implicit biases even if they cannot control implicit attitudes, and their implicit attitudes cause behavior, according to Wesley Buckwalter. byrd_nick 2 points ago in philosophy

    Abstract

    According to one picture of the mind, decisions and actions are largely the result of automatic cognitive processing beyond our ability to control. This picture is in tension with a foundational principle in ethics that moral responsibility for behavior requires the ability to control it. The discovery of implicit attitudes contributes to this tension. According to the ability argument against moral responsibility, if we cannot control implicit attitudes, and implicit attitudes cause behavior, then we cannot be morally responsible for that behavior. The purpose of this paper is to refute the ability argument. Drawing on both scientific evidence in cognitive science and philosophical arguments in ethics and action theory, I argue that it is invalid and unsound because current evidence is insufficient to establish the premises that (1) implicit attitudes are uncontrollable, (2) that they significantly cause behavior, (3) that responsibility always requires ability, and (4) that even if uncontrollable attitudes did fully cause behavior, this entails that the behavior they cause is uncontrollable. The rejection of the ability argument questions the priority of the unconscious over the conscious mind in cognitive science, deprioritizes ability in theories of moral responsibility in ethics, and provides a strong reason to uphold moral responsibility for implicitly biased behavior.

    [–] A free Introduction to Philosophy course is now online. byrd_nick 2 points ago in philosophy

    Course Overview

    We tend to think and worry about issues that are important to us, such as:

    • Career/Vocation: What jobs do we want? Should we quit our job? How can work be better?
    • Facts: When should we trust people, institutions, test results, evidence, etc.? How? And why?
    • Finances: How should we save/invest? How much does a good life cost? How should insurance work?
    • Lifestyle: Should I relax or study? What should I eat (or not eat)? What should I do (or not do) with my body?
    • Politics: What institutions/policies/candidates should we support (if any)? How should we decide?
    • Relationships: What makes a relationship/friend/partner good? Are we as likable as I think? Does it matter?

    This class will introduce us to new (and hopefully better) tools for answering these questions. So, by learning these tools in class (and outside of class), then we could think (and hopefully live) better. Specifically, we could improve our ability to analyze and evaluate real-world problems, arguments, evidence, and/or principles. That is both good news and bad news—ask me about this in class some time.

    Warning: Learning the tools of philosophical analysis and evaluation is not very difficult. However, applying these rules to new material without a philosopher’s guidance can be surprisingly hard. The best medicine seems to be practice. So, practice. And practice again (not just in the classroom). And make sure that at least some of your practice conditions mimic assignment and test conditions—e.g., write your answers with some kind of time constraint and without immediate access to the answers.

    [–] I have studied philosophy & want to write & publish philosophical essays - how/where do I start? byrd_nick 2 points ago in AcademicPhilosophy

    1. Start by blogging to get in the habit of regular writing and getting feedback. Try Wordpress.com or one of its alternatives.
    2. Find out what/how other philosophers write on blogs to get ideas for what works and what doesn’t.
    3. If I may, start by trying be as concise as possible. People’s attention span is short, so you have to get to an interesting point quickly and then conclude—otherwise many people will not actually read what you’re writing. Once you master concision, try mastering other writing virtues.

    [–] Neuroscience suggests that philosophical differences could be somewhat dependent on brain differences. Here are some examples and potential implications. byrd_nick 1 points ago in neurophilosophy

    Summary

    If differences philosophical judgments are dependent on differences between brains, then neuroscience can help us understand philosophy. Here are some studies which suggest that it can differences in moral judgments depend on differences between brains. Implications are considered in the related posts at the end.