About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Massimo's Picks

* It is surprisingly difficult, no, make that currently impossible, to buy a fair trade smart phone.

* The concept of epistemically transformative experiences, applied to whether or not to have children.

* Why assessment exercises in higher education are either tautological or lead to an infinite regress. Remind me to tell my Dean... Oh, wait, already done!

* Are Neil deGrasse Tyson and the American Museum of Natural History afraid of a philosopher? It sure looks like it...

* The Masters of our society have a visceral distaste of public education and the common good. Time to get rid of the Masters?

* A majority of Austrians think the Nazi would be elected if they were allowed to run today. Thereby demonstrating that human beings really do learn precisely nothing from history.

* The right of Israel to exist should not be questioned, but the right of a Jewish state to exist very much should.

* Why libertarians are profoundly wrong about the existence and functioning of markets.

* The real life Frankensteins that inspired Mary Shelley.

* A neuroscientist talks about neuro-hype.

* Why Ray Kurzweil's new book is a piece of crap, part I.

* Why Ray Kurzweil's new book is a piece of crap, part II.

16 comments:

  1. The two philosophy blogs I read now are this one (of course!) and the NYTimes.com THE STONE, which, BTW, has a link to Rationally Speaking (to the X-Phi post) in its latest post.

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/ronald-dworkins-religious-atheism/

    ReplyDelete
  2. So nobody's ever become libertarian on empirical grounds?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. The republican view of markets in the article sounds pretty much like the "Ordo" in the Ordoliberalist school of thinking. Still seems like the view that makes most sense to me - regulation is not bad per se, as long as it sets a framework that allows actors to plan.

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  4. Did you really find McGinn's arguments convincing?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think much of Kurzweil's ideas, but I was horrified by McGinn's review. According to McGinn, information requires a subject and neurons can't send signals. He says things like, “There is no perceptual recognition going on at all in thinking about an absent object.”

    It was almost as bad as his Deacon review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, McGinn is pretty embarrassing most of the time. Kurzweil, likewise, though for different reasons.

      Delete
  6. Thanks for the "visceral distaste" link. There should be
    more discussion of the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act”
    as it is indeed an analogue to teaching Creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. W.r.t the piece on having children, so the only criteria for something being a rational pursuit is how good you feel after you've done it? Consequently I think work on the subject is very shallow as it doesn't scratch the moral and ethical issues around having kids for the individual parent and society as it stands. Am I conflating two issues?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Louis,
      were did you get the feeling well part from the article? The argument is that it's not a rational decision because that would require you to fully comprehend both options, which is impossible.

      Chris

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, your question is fragmented. My point is whether you think it makes you happy or not is only a small facet of the issues around having kids. Likewise I find her argument unconvincing, I haven't read her paper in honesty.

      Delete
    4. Would anyone like to respond to my question?

      Delete
    5. Hi Louis,

      I don't think you are wrong, exactly, however I think for most people the choice to have kids or not probably does boil down to self-interest, even if it's just the satisfaction of some instinctive emotional longing.

      Few people are socially-conscious enough to make such a personally momentous decision on the basis of the marginal effects it would have on society as a whole.

      As such, for the majority of people, the analysis of the paper seems pretty reasonable to me.

      Delete
  8. So, why didn't AMNH disinvite Krauss, too? A #fail there by Tyson.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.