Sex, Singer and Ali G (Salerno)

[Cross-posted from KNowAbiliTy]

Peter Singer reminds us here that sex with humans is a lot more fun. And Ali G has something to say about animal rights as well.

Reasons for Non-Selection of Job Candidates

If you are on the job market, you might wonder why you didn't get an initial interview or a follow-up interview with a particular school. At my school official non-selection criteria are used. Here are the most important ones (slightly reformulated so as not to step on any administrator's toes).

(1) Degree-granting institution not as strong in the field as those of the candidates selected.
(2) Candidate accepatable but candidates selected have more/better publications.
(3) Insufficient publication record considering the length of time.
(4) Reseach/Publications not appropriate to position as advertized.
(5) Area of specialization overlaps significantly with those of current members of the department and/or does not fit with the needs of the department as advertized.
(6) History of difficult interpersonal relationships.
(7) Dissertation not completed and insufficient evidence that it will be by the end of the year.
(8) Degree in a field not compatible with the needs of the department as advertized.

A note is added to the effect that (1) should be applied cautiously for females whose choice of school was dependent on her spouse's career, because - as they say - in such cases the candidate may not have had the 'luxury of choosing a top-ranked school for her work'.

I couldn't resist quoting the last part. I find the suggestion as such rather crude in its formulation. As for the selection criteria: they would have made it possible to reject Wittgenstein. But of course that is consistent with the views of both parties in the current debate.

Stanley vs. McGlynn

Jason Stanley and Aidan McGlynn have started a very interesting debate over whether Wittgenstein could have passed the tenure requirements at a current elite university. The main posts by Stanley can be found here and here. McGlynn replies to Stanley here and here. Carrie Jenkins expresses a third point of view here.

From the APA

Since I am obviously failing to make good on my promise to report from the APA, I am glad others are making up for it. Aidan McGlynn has a new report here, which (among other things) includes a brief summary of the Cappelen/Stanley session.

Some Papers

I have posted new drafts of the following papers to my website.

The first are my comments on Delia Graff Fara's paper at the Arizona Ontology Conference. It includes a quick reply to an objection Chalmers raised.

The second is my paper on Sharvy's theory of descriptions.

The third is my paper from the recent APA meeting. I still haven't fully replied to one of Zoltan Szabo's objections. So revisions will be made.

UPDATE: When I posted the APA paper I didn't reinsert the acknowledgement. That has now been corrected.

Comments on Graff Fara's Paper

I have uploaded a rough draft of my comments on Graff Fara's super-interesting paper for the Arizona Ontology Conference to my website. In the comments I briefly outline an epistemic solution to the problem of contingent identity. But, as Chalmers has just pointed out to me, it is not obvious that sentences involving subjunctive conditionals such as 'Goliath is identical to Lumpl but if I broke off his finger he wouldn't be' can be handled in this way. The puzzle of contingent identity: (1) and (2) seem true.

(1) Goliath is identical to Lumpl.

(2) But Goliath might not have been identical to Lumpl.

But they can't be if identity is absolute, and names are rigid. I suggest that the modality in (2) is (deeply) epistemic.

UPDATE: Formula (4) didn't go through. It should be: (x)(y)(x = y --> <>(x is not identical to y) iff <>(y is not identical to y)).

Philosophers' Carnival # 41

... is here.

Wiki Journal Info

Douglas Portmore has started a new wiki site which evaluates philosophy journals (HT: Weatherson).

Propositions and Attitude Ascriptions

Just a quick note relating to Chalmers' Propositions and Attitude Ascriptions (PA), which can be found here. In (PA) Chalmers defends a new approach to attitude ascriptions. Roughly: an utterance of 'S believes that p' is true iff S endorses a proposition q that is relevantly connected to p. q is relevantly connected to p iff p and q determine the same 2-intension, and q determines a p-relevant 1-intension. The 2-intension part is introduced in order to deal with cases of the following sort:

(1) Twin-Oscar believes water tastes good.

Suppose I utter (1). There is a feeling that (1) is false even if Twin-Oscar truly enjoys the clear non-alcoholic liquid in his glass. After all, Twin-Oscar is surrounded by XYZ and not H20. But if belief operators operated only on 1-intensions, then (1) would be true.

The account seems right to me. But I am wondering about:

(2) It is a priori for Twin-Oscar that water (if it exists) is the clear liquid in rivers and lakes.

Intuitively, (2) is false if uttered by me. Twin-Oscar is surrounded by XYZ not H20. But if deeply epistemic operators operate on 1-intension, as suggested by Chalmers, then (2) should be true (since the 1-intension of the operand sentence is necessary for Twin-Oscar). Now, I am aware that Chalmers has recently introduced some entertainability clause into his account of the a priori. But the operand sentence in (2) is entertainable (recall that I am the utterer, not Twin-Oscar). So it would seem that we need deeply epistemic operators to operate on something other than just 1-intension. Perhaps the following simple amendment might work: A's utterance of 'It is a priori for S that p' is true iff the 2-intension of 'p' (in the mouth of A) is true at the world of S, and the 1-intension of 'p' is necessary for S.

Chalmers on Ontological Anti-Realism

Today I read Carrie Jenkin's interesting post and David Chalmers' equally interesting paper -- very quickly on a very bumpy flight. But let me try to summarize Chalmers' paper (leaving out a whole bunch of important details). The paper begins with a discussion of ontological disputes. Here is one: there is a table with two cups. Is there in addition to the two cups also a cup-cup -- the fusion of the two cups? Here is another: there are some atoms arranged chair-wise. Is there in addition to the atoms also a chair? Realists in the relevant disputes would tend to say 'yes'. Chalmers is an anti-realist. His new position -- as I understand it on a quick read -- is this. There are worlds with micro-physical facts. But worlds do not come equipped with domains of quantification. Instead when we utter a sentence such as 'this is a chair' or 'this is a cup-cup' the context of utterance supplies a funishing function -- a function from worlds to domains. In ordinary contexts the furnishing functions may yield domains with chairs and cups but no cup-cups, and in the ontology room the furnishing functions may yield domains with cup-cups or alternatively no cups and no chairs. There are various admissibility constraints on the furnishing functions. 'There are unicorns' is inconsistent with a semantically neutral description of the micro-physical level of reality. So, it is not correct in any (actual) context to say that there are unicorns.

Some questions:
(1) Chalmers assimilates his quantifier domain restriction approach to other more well-known forms of quantifier domain restriction. But it is well-known that different occurrences of quantified noun phrases in one and the same sentence can be restricted in different ways. Stanley and Williamson offer this example: "every sailor waived to every sailor', which may be used to make a true assertion if the sailors on one ship waived to the sailors on another ship. I wonder whether there could also be different furnishing functions relative to different elements of a sentence or discourse fragment. Suppose I say "There are just two objects on the table unless we include the fusion of the cups". What I said may well be correct. But 'there are just two objects on the table' must then be associated with one furnishing function and 'the fusion of the cups' with another. Furnishing functions would then be specific to the occurrences of quantified noun phrases and not to the conversational context as such.

(2) This takes us to my second question. Are the furnishing functions values of function variables which are represented syntactically? Or do they enter into the analysis at a different level? On Stanley and Szabo's quantifier domain restriction strategy, the domain and function variables are represented syntactically. Since Chalmers assimilates his approach to other more well-known forms of quantifier domain restriction, one might suspect that the function variables are represented syntactically.

(3) If the function variables are represented syntactically, how do we deal with cases of the following sort? 'Each journal editor told each referee to reject each paper' (See Schlenker 2005, Mind & Language for similar examples)

(4) On a different note: are there in fact two kinds of quantifiers? Those ranging over the micro-physical domain (that is, those occurring in a semantically neutral description of a world) and those ranging over domains yielded by the furnishing functions? If so, then why isn't this a form of ontological realism?

I have a number of additional questions. But I will save them for later. I still need to read the paper more carefully.

APA 2006

A note on my own talk at the APA, which Paul Pietroski chaired. It was a fun session (even though most of us had slept very little the night before because of the fire). Stanley, Graff Fara, Sayball and others in the audience offered constructive criticism, and Zoltan Szabo, my commentator, provided neat comments. I basically defended a new partitive account of plural definite descriptions. Sentences such as 'the students asked questions' cause trouble for a "standard" Russellian account of plural definite descriptions. This is because on a Russellian account of plural definite descriptions, a sentence such as 'the students asked questions' ought to come out as equivalent to 'all the students asked questions'. But it seems that the sentence could be true even if only a handful of students asked questions. I argued that a Russellian analysis is correct at a primary level of analysis but that plural definites function as partitives at a subsequent level. So, at a subsequent level of analysis, 'the students asked questions' might come out as 'some of the students asked questions'. Zoltan was happy with an amended version of the partitive account but argued that plural definite descriptions do not involve a maximality implication (at the primary level of analysis). His main counterexample to the Russellian account:

(1) Two men entered the room with five others. The two men took off their hats and handed them to one of the others.

It seems that (1) may be true. But on the Russellian account it would appear to be contradictory. I am still thinking about a proper response. But, as Zoltan pointed out, there is also the possibility of accepting his (and Ludlow and Segal and others') unitary account in conjunction with my partitive account. That way we can both have what we need (as he put it) -- and perhaps we can both have what we want as well.

My paper (which is forthcoming in Mind and Language) is available here. A revised version will be uploaded soon.

Call for Papers: David Lewis

Between Logic and Intuition: David Lewis and the Future of Formal Methods in Philosophy: Conference at the Carlsberg Academy in Copenhagen, October 3- 5 , 2007.

Invited Speakers / John Collins, Hannes Leitgeb, Rohit Parikh, L.A. Paul, Brian Weatherson

Program Committee and Conference Chairs / Johan van Benthem, Vincent F. Hendricks, John Symons (SYNTHESE) , Stig Andur Pedersen (PHIS)

Conference Manager / Pelle Guldborg Hansen

Call for papers / Synthese invites papers on the work of David Lewis and formal philosophy in accordance with the conference abstract. The final papers should be sent electronically to Editor-in-Chief, Vincent F. Hendricks at vincent@ruc.dk, using "SAC"-submission in the subject entry. The deadline for submitting a paper for consideration is April 1, 2007. Notification of acceptance for presentation at the conference is August 1, 2007.

Publication / A selection of the best papers will be published as an anthology in the Synthese Library book series.

(via Joe Salerno)

Call for Papers: Applied Stochastic Models

This a call for abstract submission (deadline Jan. 25, 2007) for the 12th International Conference on Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis (ASMDA 2007), which will take place in Chania, Crete, Greece (May 29 - June 1, 2007).

The ASMDA Conferences are organized every two years starting 25 years ago with the first ASMDA Symposium organized in Brussels, Belgium (1981). The papers presented are included in special volumes. The best papers appear in special issues of the leading journals of the ASMDA field.

Further information at the Conference Website. You can also download a conference poster at the same web site. (Deadline for Abstract Submission and Special Session proposal January 25, 2007).

(via Christos H. Skiadas)

Images of Hanging Make Hussein a Martyr

From Truthout:

In the week since Saddam Hussein was hanged in an execution steeped in sectarian overtones, his public image in the Arab world, formerly that of a convicted dictator, has undergone a resurgence of admiration and awe. At the heart of the sudden reversal of opinion was the symbolism of the hasty execution, now framed as an act of sectarian vengeance shrouded in political theater and overseen by the American occupation.

Read more here.

Dancing Queen

Just went to see the Broadway musical Mamma Mia! The performances and the music were fantastic. The plot: 20-year old Sophie (Carey Anderson) is getting married. Having never known the identity of her father, Sophie invites to her wedding three men mentioned in her mother's diary. The 23 hit songs by Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus from the Swedish pop-group ABBA rocked the house. If you are in the City and need a break before classes start, I can definitely recommend going.

UPDATE (some pics): subway; with lead actress Carey Anderson; on Broadway stage with bodyguard and Joe's sister Holly.

Call for Papers: Applying Peirce

An International Conference on Peirce's Thought and Its Applications, 11-13 June 2007.
University of Helsinki, Finland
Organized in conjunction with the 9th World Congress of the International
Association of Semiotic Studies.
http://www.helsinki.fi/peirce/2007/

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Program Committee cordially invites papers on any topic in accordance with
the theme of the conference. The Committee is especially interested in
proposals that explore the applicability of Peirce's thought to current
questions and problems in various disciplines.

The conference will include special sessions on Peirce and
* logic
* abductive reasoning (invited speakers in this session: Lorenzo Magnani and
Ilkka Niiniluoto)
* communication and rhetoric

Other suitable topics include the use and applicability of Peirce's thought in
* contemporary philosophical debates
* mathematics
* artificial intelligence
* cognitive science
* linguistics
* literary studies
* the study of fine arts and design
* physics
* biology
* psychology
* sociology
* anthropology

Keynote and plenary speakers include Nathan Houser (Peirce Edition Project,
IUPUI) and Jaakko Hintikka (Boston University). In addition to contributed
papers, the Conference will include invited talks, special sessions and a
workshop on the editing of Peirce's writings.

SUBMISSION DETAILS

Deadline for abstracts of 300-500 words is 15 February 2007. Submissions
are
made electronically by email attachment to peirce-research@helsinki.fi, and
must include two files:

* A file titled Abstract, including the title and abstract of the paper,
set up for anonymous review.
* A separate file titled Author including the title and author
information, including email address. Please include a note on any AV needs
you may have in this file.
The file formats .pdf, .rtf and .doc are preferable. You will be sent a
confirmation note after your submission has been received. If you have not
received a confirmation in seven days after your submission, please resend,
if possible, using an alternative email address.

All persons making a submission will be notified of the acceptance to the
Conference program by 31 March 2007.

PROGRAM COMMITTEE

Vincent Colapietro (Chair)
André De Tienne
Leila Haaparanta
Risto Hilpinen
Robert Innis
Jørgen Dines Johansen
Lorenzo Magnani
Cheryl Misak
Ilkka Niiniluoto
Jaime Nubiola
María Lucia Santaella
John Sowa

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (Chair)
Henrik Rydenfelt (Secretary)
Merja Bauters
Mats Bergman
Erkki Kilpinen
Tarja Knuuttila
Pentti Määttänen
Sami Paavola
Sami Pihlström

The conference is arranged by the Helsinki Peirce Research Centre and
sponsored by the Charles S. Peirce Society and the Philosophical Society of
Finland. For more information, please email to peirce-research@helsinki.fi.
Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (Department of Philosophy; P.O. Box 9, FIN-00014;
University of Helsinki; Finland).

(via Sami Paavola)

The Eastern APA

Just returned from a very strange Eastern APA. A fire in the main conference hotel kept the smoker going until 8 am in the morning. Most of us had talks and other business going on the next morning but at least we managed to shower, put on some wet clothes and air-dry the handouts. Anyway, there were very many very good talks on the program. I don't have the time or inclination to offer summaries presently, as I am still traveling but when I return I will try to catch up. In the meantime there are several interesting summaries of talks over at Knowability and The Boundaries of Language. Personally I really enjoyed Herman Cappelen and Jason Stanley's session on context-sensitivity, which I accidentally chaired (as a substitute for Peter Ludlow, who missed out on all the fun).

UPDATE: As Gil Harman points out over at TAR. 3 fires have now occurred in the hotel where the recent APA meeting was held. Click here to read more.

Arizona Ontology Conference 2007

The conference website for the Arizona Ontology Conference, Jan 17-21 2007, is now up, here. The papers are password protected but you may be able to find versions of the papers on people's websites. Speakers include: Ted Sider, Helen Beebee, Carolina Sartorio, Delia Graff Fara, Ned Hall, Caroline West, David Chalmers, John Hawthorne, Cian Dorr, Sarah McGrath and Kathrin Koslicki. Commentators: Agustin Rayo, Terry Horgan, Michael Fara, Brit Brogaard, Antony Eagle, Krista Lawlor, John Divers, Jill North, Mark Heller, and Kris McDaniel. A full list of participants can be found here.

John Searle: Freedom & Neurobiology

John Searle's very interesting-looking Freedom & Neurobiology: Reflections on Free Will, Language, and Political Power is out. Here is a brief description from the press (CUP):

The essays that comprise this volume return to some of the crucial issues that have defined Searle's work: language, consciousness, free will, and social ontology and political power. Searle proposes new ways of thinking about these issues and addresses how recent scientific discoveries have shaped philosophical understandings of the mind and consciousness. In the first essay, "Free Will as Problem in Neurobiology," Searle examines key philosophical issues in the context of recent discoveries in neurobiology. Searle then applies his theory of social reality to the problem of political power, explaining the role of language in the formation of our political reality.

There is also an excerpt available here.

Philosophers' Carnival # 40

... is here.