Online Papers

I spent a bit of time – a bit too much time probably – converting my archived papers into LaTeX form. Now that I’ve done that, it was easy enough to make them into a giant collection. So if anyone wants to download a bunch of my papers, currently at 43, but that number might change, here they are.

bq. “Brian Weatherson’s Online Papers”:http://brian.weatherson.org/WeathersonCW.pdf

I’m going to update that file reasonably often, but keep the same link. So the pagination in that file will change frequently. Of course, if you want to cite things, you should cite the published versions, so that shouldn’t cause any problems.

Updates

I managed to break a lot of the inner workings of TAR last week while tinkering with something that I thought was unrelated. Fortunately, Michael Kremer alerted me that there was a problem, and it should be now under control. (I’d broken TAR’s .htaccess file while tinkering with hotlink protection in case you’re interested. It turns out to be really easy to do this on a WordPress blog.) Things should be up and running again, and I updated quite a few things while trying to figure out the problem. So let me know if you see any non-content-related bugs, and thanks to Michael for the alert.

Speaking of blogs, the Rutgers grad students have a blog: “Discovering Truths and Announcing Them”:http://dtaatb.weebly.com/index.html. It looks good, and there is already a bit of activity in the comments threads.

And speaking of grad students, I want to thank everyone at MIT for both their hospitality and their insightful comments when I presented _Do Judgments Screen Evidence?_ there last week. I’ll post something soon about the things I learned there.

There’s a new society at the APA.

bq. The inaugural David Kellogg Lewis Society Group Meeting next Thursday! 2010 American Philosophical Association Pacific Division Meeting, Westin St. Francis, San Francisco, Thursday April 1, 8-10pm. Our special guest speaker will be Terry Horgan, “Quantification with Crossed Fingers.” Also appearing: Richard Hanley: “Counterfactuals, Backtracking, and Time Travel.”

I liked this picture of a spot on the river I frequently walk by; I wish I could take pictures like this.

Student Loan Reform

Somewhat overlooked in the drama over health insurance reform last night was that the House also passed a major piece of “student loan reform”:http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2010&base_name=another_good_thing_happened_la. Currently the Federal Government offers huge subsidies to the student loan industry. This is basically a good idea, but the effect is that a lot of the subsidies are swept up by the loan providers, i.e. banks. The reforms will allow students to borrow directly from the government. Over the next 10 years, over $60 billion that would have been passed on to the banks in subsidies will be kept in the public purse. Most of that money will be spent on Pell grants, community colleges and historically black colleges and universities. In effect, the legislation is a massive transfer of wealth from the banking industry to higher education, and it will help hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students attend college who would not otherwise have been able to afford it.

Of course, this assumes the legislation passes the Senate and White House. I keep being told that Obama is just interested in doing the bidding of the banking industry. I assume the people who say this will predict that he’ll veto the relevant legislation. Let’s see if that happens.

Workshop Followup

As I advertised here, we ran a one-day methodology workshop at Rutgers last week. I think it was a success, though one of (several) things I didn’t organise was recording devices. (I messed up on this; I should have had at least audio recording.) Thanks to Josh Knobe, Liz Harman, Michael Strevens and Jenny Nado for doing great talks, and an audience who asked engaged and smart questions.

The cost of the conference to my research account was a little over $1000, mostly for lunch. And most people who travelled there would have paid less than $20. A few people came from a little further away, but I think the overall cost of the conference, including costs incurred by the attendees, was under $2000. If you do the same equation for most 2-3 day conferences, the costs can fly past $100,000, maybe well past it. Most of those conferences are better than the one we ran at Rutgers, but probably not 50-100 times better. In terms of ‘bang-for-the-buck’, I think a one-day workshop with local speakers is a very good model.

Philosophy Compass, Volume 5, Issue 3

History of Philosophy

Recent Work on Kantian Maxims I: Established Approaches (p 216-227)
Rob Gressis
Published Online: Mar 15 2010 8:19AM

DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00254.x

Abstract
 | 
References | Full Text:
 
HTML,

 
PDF (Size: 100K)

Recent Work on Kantian Maxims II (p 228-239)
Rob Gressis
Published Online: Mar 15 2010 8:19AM

DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00255.x

Abstract
 | 
References | Full Text:
 
HTML,

 
PDF (Size: 94K)

Legal & Political

Objectivity in Law (p 240-249)
Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco
Published Online: Mar 15 2010 8:19AM

DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00283.x

Abstract
 | 
References | Full Text:
 
HTML,

 
PDF (Size: 85K)

Logic & Language

Compositionality I: Definitions and Variants (p 250-264)
Peter Pagin, Dag Westerståhl
Published Online: Mar 15 2010 8:19AM

DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00228.x

Abstract
 | 
References | Full Text:
 
HTML,

 
PDF (Size: 139K)

Compositionality II: Arguments and Problems (p 265-282)
Peter Pagin, Dag Westerståhl
Published Online: Mar 15 2010 8:19AM

DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00229.x

Abstract
 | 
References | Full Text:
 
HTML,

 
PDF (Size: 132K)

Teaching & Learning Guide

Teaching & Learning Guide for: The Problem of Change (p 283-286)
Ryan Wasserman
Published Online: Mar 15 2010 8:19AM

DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00242.x

Abstract | Full Text:
 
PDF (Size: 52K)

Advice for Incoming Grad Students

Many of you reading this blog will have been getting letters from various philosophy departments telling you that you’ve been admitted and/or wait-listed for different departments. If so, you may now have a very big choice ahead of you – which school to choose. You’ll get a lot of advice from various sources; here’s my contribution.

IGNORE Leiter rankings.

I think the Leiter rankings are incredibly useful, especially for foreign students. But their usefulness is in deciding which universities to apply to, not which universities to go to. By the time you make the decision, you should have much more information than the voters in the Leiter rankings, and much much more information about the fit between you and various departments. You should care about the things that influence Leiter rankings, like faculty quality, but not the rankings themselves.

NOTICE placement records.

I think you should spend a lot of time looking at the placement record of different schools. Think of all sorts of questions to ask about the placement record. What’s the third best job students from that school got any given year? What’s the fifth best? Does the school place its students reasonably equally, or is it more of a ‘feast or famine’ model, with the best students going to top 10 schools, and many others getting nothing? Or perhaps is it one way for students in one discipline and another in other disciplines. How many years do students spend at the school before getting jobs? (If the school generally places well, but only after you’ve spent 8-10 years there, is that something you’d prefer to a weaker placement record that nevertheless gets most people jobs after 5-6 years?) Does the school seem to support its students who get unattractive jobs out of grad school, then move somewhere else at (or even before) tenure?

Remember that these things change, and records from only 1-3 years may be a very small sample size to generalise from. So reading these records takes some care, but it’s worth spending time thinking hard about. The PhD is, at the end of the day, a professional degree, and you should think about what it will do for your standing in the profession.

IGNORE negative campaigning.

Everyone will have horror stories about their rivals. Trust these about as much as you trust RNC press releases about Barack Obama. To be fair, some of the stories will be related in some loose way to the truth. Perhaps when they say that things are like X at school Y, that will mean that in the late 90s, things were kind of like X there, at least among the unhappy students. But in my experience these stories are typically out of date (ask yourself – how much time has the person telling me the story spent the school in question in the last 24-36 months?), and based on lazy stereotypical thinking.

NOTICE who your classmates will be.

You’ll spend more time with your fellow grad students than with faculty members over the next five years. They matter. A lot. In recent years students seem to have started paying a lot of attention to who will be in the incoming class with them. That’s important, though not much more important than who will be in the other classes. A student body that is smart, engaged with current debates, active (in terms of setting up reading groups) and supportive of each other’s work is very valuable. At Rutgers some of the student readings groups are run at a higher level than some seminars. (Well, at least than my seminars.)

And don’t just look at the individual students – look at the culture. This can be tricky, because cultures can change. But they tend to change slowly. A culture where everyone is competing to be the best student, and denigrating each other along the way, is going to be a bad place to be at grad school, and it will stay that way. On the other hand, a culture where everyone is trying to help everyone out will, in all probability, keep being a fun place to work for many years.

ATTEND as many campus visits as possible.

You can’t get a sense of what the grad students at a school are like without being there. So attend these visits, and talk to the grad students. If there’s something wrong with a department, they’ll say so. You’ll be told about what the culture is like, and you’ll have a chance to check what you’re told against what you see. And you’ll get to meet your incoming classmates. This is all incredibly valuable information.

I hope to see many of you at the Rutgers visit!

Methodology Workshop

I’m hosting a one day workshop on philosophical methodology in the (Rutgers, New Brunswick) department on Friday March 12, from 10am to 6pm. The workshop will feature papers by Joshua Knobe, Elizabeth Harman, Michael Strevens and Jennifer Nado. It will be held in the seminar room in Seminary 3, which is one of the two new department buildings. (It’s on Seminary Place, at George St, two blocks north of the New Brunswick train station.)

The papers by Harman and Strevens will be distributed ahead of time, and their sessions will mostly be Q&A on their papers; the papers by Knobe and Nado will be presented on the day, with questions afterwards. Lunch and refreshments will be provided throughout the day.

The conference has no registration costs, but numbers are limited. As some of you may have seen from the talk last Thursday, the seminar room at Rutgers can get crowded for popular talks. So if you’re interested in coming along to it, could you leave a comment to this post registering your interest? There are about 20 spots left, though that number will shrink if more Rutgers or Arche folks are interested in coming along, since my employers get priority!

I’ll be posting a full schedule, along with the papers that will be distributed in advance, in the next week, but for now I’m just opening registrations. I hope to see many of you here at the workshop!

Philosophy Compass, Volume 5, Issue 2

Aesthetics & Philosophy of Art

Philosophy of Humor (p 112-126)
Joshua Shaw
Published Online: Feb 10 2010 4:56AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00281.x

Abstract  |  References | Full Text:   HTML,   PDF (Size: 105K)

Continental

Kierkegaard’s Conception of God (p 127-135)
Paul K. Moser, Mark L. McCreary
Published Online: Feb 10 2010 4:56AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00276.x

Abstract  |  References | Full Text:   HTML,   PDF (Size: 74K)

Temporality in Queer Theory and Continental Philosophy (p 136-146)
Shannon Winnubst
Published Online: Feb 10 2010 4:56AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00278.x

Abstract  |  References | Full Text:   HTML,   PDF (Size: 87K)

History of Philosophy

Frege’s Distinction Between Sense and Reference (p 147-163)
Gideon Makin
Published Online: Feb 10 2010 4:56AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00277.x

Abstract  |  References | Full Text:   HTML,   PDF (Size: 118K)

Logic & Language

Pejoratives (p 164-185)
Christopher Hom
Published Online: Feb 10 2010 4:56AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00274.x

Abstract  |  References | Full Text:   HTML,   PDF (Size: 135K)

Mind & Cognitive Science

Philosophical Issues in Neuroimaging (p 186-198)
Colin Klein
Published Online: Feb 10 2010 4:56AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00275.x

Abstract  |  References | Full Text:   HTML,   PDF (Size: 95K)

Naturalistic Philosophy

Experimental Philosophy and Free Will (p 199-212)
Tamler Sommers
Published Online: Feb 10 2010 4:56AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00273.x

Abstract  |  References | Full Text:   HTML,   PDF (Size: 103K)

Teaching & Learning Guide

Teaching & Learning Guide for: Vagueness: Supervaluationism (p 213-215)
Rosanna Keefe
Published Online: Feb 10 2010 4:56AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00272.x

Abstract | Full Text:   PDF (Size: 47K)