A new generation of rockstar philosophers are taking the discipline to the masses. But their TED Talks, TV shows, and best-sellers might be ruining it…
Instead of focusing on products, the anthropologists and sociologists at ReD Associates are working to understand “worlds” — the contexts in which people live and create meaning in their everyday lives.
In “Publishing in Philosophy,” Michael Huemer, professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, provides an abundance of detailed and helpful advice about writing and publishing philosophical work. He also includes several criticisms of the refereeing system and some suggestions for fixing it. Along the way is an interesting discussion of philosophy’s uselessness to society. He draws attention to three aspects of this uselessness [emphasis added]: 1. Unwanted Writings The philosophy publication system is also pretty much useless to society, where it seems to me that one might reasonably have hoped for something useful. Quite a bit of intellectual talent and energy is being channeled into producing thousands upon thousands of papers and books that hardly anyone will ever read or want to read. These articles and books are written almost entirely for other academics working in the same sub-sub-sub-specialization that the author works in. The main reason they are written is so that the author can get tenure or otherwise get credit for publishing. The main reason they are read even by the tiny number of people who read them is so that the readers can cite those articles in their own articles. Some years ago, I looked up statistics on how much philosophy was being published. At the time, the Philosopher’s Index (which indexed most articles and books in the English-speaking world) was getting 14,000 new records per year. The number has probably expanded greatly since then. PhilPapers presently lists 646 new records this week. What proportion of those books and articles could the average philosopher possibly read? In my years in the profession, I have read many papers. Almost none of them were read for the purpose of my learning anything interesting from them. Most were read solely so that I could give an evaluation to them – as in the case of student papers, which are written solely to be graded and then are generally thrown away; or journal submissions, which one reads solely so that one can say whether they should be published. My guess is that I’ve read more journal submissions as a referee than I’ve read published papers as a scholar. When the main reason why people do x is so that someone else can evaluate their ability..
A video of “Science Guy” Bill Nye dismissing the entire centuries-old discipline of philosophy has infuriated many.
Why almost everything you think about democracy is wrong.
BlessU-2, which delivers blessings in five languages, is intended to trigger debate about the future of the church
Author Information: Robert Frodeman, University of North Texas, Robert.Frodeman@unt.edu Frodeman, Robert. “Socratics and Anti-Socratics: The Status of Expertise.” Social Epistemology Re…
Texas A&M president calls remarks “disturbing.”
Desde su origen la filosofía ha crecido lo mismo dentro que al margen de las instituciones, de la mano de los no expertos. A finales del siglo XIX se volvió una disciplina universitaria y terminó por aislarse de la sociedad. Fue un error.
The data economy demands a new approach to antitrust rules
It isn’t too late to stop technologies from further destabilizing fragile democratic institutions.
Christian Madsbjerg argues that literature and philosophy aid corporate creativity.
We already have a way to teach morals to alien intelligences: it’s called parenting. Can we apply the same methods to robots?
The following are a set of questions concerning the place of transhumanism in the Western philosophical tradition that Robert Frodeman’s Philosophy 5250 class at the University of North Texas posed…