I would like to say the philosophy papers blog is up, but actually there aren’t any new papers to link to. Ted Honderich has a paper in the Independent attacking Tony Blair, to which Chris Bertram has already responded.

I don’t normally mention mentions of papers without links, but I couldn’t help noting that Christopher Green notes on his website the existence of a paper called Psychology Strikes Out: Coleman Griffith and the Chicago Cubs.
I wonder what it could be.

Last night at dinner one of the (many) topics that came up was the quality of titles of philosophical papers. One reason for this was that one of our generous hosts is one of the best in the business at entitling. I feel like I should be writing more about the conversations, since there was lots interesting, but right now all my conversations with my inner editor are something like the following:

–Do you remember when … said … about …

–Should I? Was it worth remembering?

–Yes. Yes.

–Oh. No.

Maybe if I carried around a notepad like a little cub reporter. At one stage I defended the common newspaper practice of treating know as a synonym for truly believes in sentences like 9% of Americans know how many Iraqis were amongst the September 11 hijackers. I thought these cases really are evidence, perhaps not compelling evidence but evidence, for the claim that knowledge just is true belief. Then this morning I see that according to the NY Times, “Half of what doctors know is wrong.”