Welcome to the November Carnival of Philosophy.
For those who prefer their entertainment in the original, so to speak, I have listed below the bare links, seriatim.
For those who care for an introduction, or don’t mind a moment of (only barely) informed commentary as introduction, I have provided, followed by the respective link and the author’s remarks.
Australia (location being crucial to cogency of argument, after all). I note as well an unfortunate taste among some of our contributors for small white text on black backgrounds. Philosophy may be hard, but it should not for that be hard to read. All appear open for comments.
So, either straight shot or café corretto, enjoy!
A discussion of an argument that non-empirical factors must be taken into consideration in assessing (scientific) theories (and explanations).
Illusive Mind – Too Many Possibilities?
An essay on “what is possible and how possibility is formed.” I would suggest a different description – possibility and epistemology, and, perhaps, a radical interpretation of non-empirical factors in epistemology.
"A post on the nature of what is possible and how possibility is formed."
An essay on Boxilll’s Lockean derivation of a claim for reparations for African-Americans. Parableman, along the way, answers critics of Boxill.
"This post interrupts a series on affirmative action to consider an argument for reparations based on slavery from Bernard Boxill but based entirely on Locekan principles. The argument seems to go through even on the assumptions of politically conservative and moderate black thinkers such Thomas Sowell and John McWhorter, once a couple of objections are dealt with, but the kind of reparations required required by the argument need not be much more than many people (including McWorter) already want to do on other grounds."
The big history sciences – paleontology, geology, phylogenetics, e.g., -- work from a notion of knowledge unlike that addressed by Moore and Wittgenstein: they use a fallibilistic notion of knowledge. Wittgenstein put to pasture.
A brief meditation on the ways in which cognitive functions are malleable to quotidian political pressures.
"George Orwell worried that the "very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world." Hannah Arendt said that "even if he enlists the hlp of pcomputers" the liar can't help but eventually run into the fact that there is a reality in opposition to the lie. Who wins? The aftermath on the web of the Lancet study of mortality is an interesting study of the fragility and the tenacity of truth."
to take Pascal’s wager, they would end up on the side opposite Blaise. Well, yes, certainly.
"My post is a dystopian story, based on the premise: what if people took Pascal's wager seriously?"
Metatome - Is Distance Education Too Distanced For Philosophy?
Chris Panza opens an interesting discussion of ‘distance learning’ in philosophy. Although his comments are limited, the following comments full in with intriguing additions.
"I suggest a link between metaphysical and political libertarianism, and explore the consequences of adopting a more moderate, 'compatibilist' account of freedom which allows quantitative comparisons to be made. In particular, I suggest that this conception of freedom (1) aggravates the 'problem of evil' for theists, and (2) lends support to liberal political views."
A moderately technical discussion of aparticular version of welfare maximization principles. It is not entirely clear id this is a principle of justice or a moral principle. EIther way, something to mull. For myself, I can't see the point of the ideal-picking criterion. But then I'm a lawyer.
Philosophy of Biology -- Was Darwin a Darwinian?
An invitation to discuss the degree to whcih Darwinian theory has elided siginificant portions of Darwin's own thinking, and wther that matters beyond historical curiosity. The follow-on discussion is very interesting.
A longish paen to Toulmin and the whole situated and contextual reasoning crew. Longer than most posts, by far, but the space is used to say something of real interest. The commentary is worth perusal as well. I should say, however, that usinig a case-method to teach medicine is an invitation to malpractice. On that, Blowhard seems to be sipping a bit of his own whisky.
For posterity's sake, the Parableman post has moved. It is now here.
ciceronianreview.typepad.com is bookmarked for future reference!
I'm reading this posting and yes it seems to be excellent! Nice way with words and you have explained some great points with this issue.