Feeds:
Posts
Comments

2012 European Epistemology Network Meeting

The European Epistemology Network provides a platform for cooperation and exchange among epistemologists and those interested in the theory of knowledge in Europe.

The 2012 meeting will be organized by the Universities of Bologna and Modena and Reggio Emilia and by COGITO Research Centre in Philosophy. It will be held in Bologna and Modena, Italy from Thursday 28th to Saturday 30th of June.

Call for abstracts

To contribute, please prepare a max. 500 word abstract for blind review. Send it to

een2012@cogito.lagado.org

on or before March 16th, 2012.

Expect a letter of acceptance by April 7th, 2012.

Confirmed speakers Continue Reading »

NCA Call for Proposals

Request for Proposals

The National Communication Association requests proposals for projects and events that will advance the discipline of communication. While there are many funding outlets for communication scholars to seek support for academic disciplinary research, NCA is uniquely positioned to support work that is focused on the discipline itself.  All funded activities should align with the goals of NCA’s strategic plan and should have widespread impact that reaches beyond a single department, campus, or NCA unit.  For information about projects and events that have been funded by NCA in the past, please click here.

Funding proposals submitted through this request for proposals should be for one-time funding not to exceed $5,000.[1]  Preference is given to stand-alone projects/events, but partial funding of larger projects/events will be considered provided that the funding is allocated to a specific piece of the larger endeavor.

Eligibility/ Funding Parameters  Continue Reading »

Ad feminam

Rush Limbaugh’s recent dismissal of Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute” reminds me of how much more vulnerable women are than men to the abusive ad hominem.  There is a a greater number of abusive words associated with women:  add “whore,” “bitch,” “cunt,” “old maid,” “hag,” “bag,” “jezebel,” “hoochie mama,” etc., as opposed to “prick,” “dick,” and “boy toy.”  Plus the feminine insults tend to be considered so bad that people often won’t actually say them, but only allude to them, for instance in saying “the c-word.”

On top of that, women tend not to be listened to, so the ad hominem may always be more effective against women.  Merely pointing out that a speaker is a woman may act as reason to ignore her. The same would apply to any marginalized people.  One’s very identity can undermine one’s claims and one’s reasons.

Lorraine Code has argued in a few places that the dismissal of women’s reasons for being women’s reasons should be identified as ad feminam.  The vulnerability of women to ad hominem suggests indeed that ad feminam deserves recognition as a distinct category.

I had thought that the increasing strategy of reductio ad absurdum in US politics was because so much of US politics is verging on the absurd.  However, the picture may be more complicated than that, and it’s nice to think there is some source for the problem we might address systematically.

A series of “joke amendments” provide reductios to abortion bills that have recently surged.  These “jokes”, such as the suggestion that vasectomies be illegal, are a serious move, argues Jessica Ogilvie in The Gloss.  They reveal inattention to the medical nature of abortion procedures.

“Legislating against it is just as fucked up as, say, legislating against heart surgery. Or prostate cancer surgery. Or…vasectomies.”

How does this happen?  She suggests it’s political inflation:

“When we talk about abortion, we get so caught up in the politics of it, as well as the philosophical questions it brings up (questions that would be better addressed in a house of worship or a college class than on a Senate floor, for the record), that we tend to lose sight of one important fact: abortion is a medical procedure.”

But what is the source of this inflation?  Everyone likes to think he or she is a moral expert and may caught up in the headiness of the debate.  How many philosophers avoid teaching the abortion debate because it is just so very heady?  Too many, I’d say.  I concur with Ogilvie that that’s a proper venue, and I’d add underused.

What allows us to lose sight of the medical nature of abortion, and the fact that it is a rare law that prohibits people from choosing what to do with their bodies, right or wrong, is the proliferation of discourse.  Politics has become self-sustaining and spun off from the concrete contexts that give it significance; likewise medical decisions can be assigned to physicians (as abortion used to be in Canada) instead of patients.  Such divergent discourses are harder to avoid in a classroom, or in the personal decision (as this joke card makes clear).

Thank goodness feminist lawyers are trained in critical thinking and strategic argumentation that aids the revelation of assumptions, such as the assumption that abortion is not a medical procedure.

I couldn’t quite believe my eyes!  But it’s true.  Nancy Cartwright, bad-girl of philosophy of science, denier of laws of nature, champion of singular causation, is giving a lecture on argumentation on March 8 at Western’s Rotman Institute for Philosophy.  To me it’s as if Gaga were to take her lyrics from Wittgenstein.

The lecture will be streamed live and available later on-line.

Philopolis at Guelph

University of Guelph graduate students (it’s my understanding) have been organizing in a serious fashion to take philosophy out of the ivory tower.  A two-day series of events, with six concurrent sessions addresses issues from Einstein to zombies, heuristics, and feminism. 

Philopolis Guelph, inspired by Philopolis Montreal aims to “[do] a better job [than academic philosophers have been doing] of engaging in dialogue with the public: this requires finding a common language, as well as being explicit about the relevance of the ideas at issue. Both academic philosophers and the broader public stand to benefit one another greatly through this kind of exchange—free of jargon, of minced words, and of exclusionary assumptions. ”

Philopolis’ resistance to academic jargon and presumption promises to make philosophy accountable as well as show non-philosophers how valuable philosophy can be.  The development of a common language is a creative endeavour that requires public engagement, and making assumptions explicit is an important principle of critical thinking to put into practice.

Philosophers sometimes think we own “critical thinking,” which is an extremely dangerous assumption in itself.  Sociologists, neurologists and physicists engage in critical thinking too, and are more aware of the limitations to their methods.

I know at Guelph they’ve been talking about this sort of event for years, and I spoke at one such around 2004.  Unfortunately, that lacked the upswell and publicity that supports this event.  Such savvy is to the credit of the graduate students, I expect.

As a faculty brat, I have a long-abiding affection for graduate students from the old days when there were more personal relationships between faculty and graduate students.  While that intimacy could and often did involve a number of problems regarding sexual morality and nepotism, some of us benefited in the most benign ways.  As the numbers of graduate students swell — at least in Canada where governments are putting money into that sector of education (mostly to the exclusion of others), many freshly-minted doctors will be disappointed by their job prospects.  The benefit however (and this is the reason the government puts the money there) is for society in general.  Graduate students have insight, passion, networking skills, and drive that can drive social and intellectual progress.  That power is well-demonstrated by Philopolis Guelph.

The art of subversion

Steve and I have had an extended discussion about the subversive potential of art since the (latest) Hendricks scandal broke.  The case of the public library in Troy, Michigan is a good case in point, I think, of how hiding the artistic quality of a communication can aid in critical thinking, foster political dialogue, and be constitutive to the art itself.

When the library was in danger of closing, supporters enacted a reductio ad absurdum on those pushing for the closure to save on taxes.  The supporters posted false publicity of a book burning party, a campaign that enraged so many people that the nature of the discourse shifted away from taxes and back to books; eventually the library was saved.

The schedule is now available for FEMMSS 4, the fourth biennial conference of the Association for Feminist Epistemologies, Methodologies, Metaphysics and Science Studies, to be held at Penn State (Nittany Lion Inn) May 10-12, 2012. The program includes a 2 1/2 hour plenary session on feminism and argumentation, plus a concurrent session on narrative and testimony, both on the last day. (These themes occur periodically throughout the conference.) See session details below.

Registration is active on-line and the fee is fairly comprehensive, including a late continental breakfast and lunch on-site each of the three days, plus a dinner reception at Nancy Tuana’s house on Friday night. Please see http://femmss.org.  It is also possible to register for just one day. We recommend paying by cheque or electronic transfer, but if you prefer then for an extra fee Paypal will be available shortly.

On-line you will also find travel and accommodation information.

Saturday May 12
10:30-1 Plenary in Ballroom C
Feminism and Argumentation

Catherine Hundleby (Windsor). Feminist Epistemology and Argumentation Theory.

Moira Howes (Trent). Poisoning the Well, Community Intellectual Virtue, and Feminism.

James C. Lang (Toronto). The “Will to Ignorance” as a Block to Engagement with Feminist Theory.

Khameiel Al Tamimi (York). A Feminist Critique of the Universal Audience.

Maureen Linker (Michigan-Dearborn). Whose Argument? Whose Credibility?: Challenging Bias in the Context of Debate.

Linda Carozza (York). (Emotional) Arguments and Feminist-friendly Resolution Mechanisms.

2-3:50 Concurrent Sessions
What She Said: Communication, Narrative and Testimony (Ballroom C)

Sara Hottinger (Keene State College). Visualizing Rationality: An Examination of Portraits in History of Mathematics Textbooks.

Shari Stone-Mediatore (Ohio Wesleyan). Ignorance and Oblivion: A Decolonial Perspective on the Epistemologies of Ignorance.

Jennifer Wagner-Lawlor (Pennsylvania State) and Deborah Tollefsen (Memphis). “Falling Off the Roof”: Menstruation, Body Illiteracy, and Epistemic Injustice.

Frontiers of Rationality
and Decision

Final workshop of a European research network
funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research

29-31 August 2012
University of Groningen, The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

Formal models of theoretical rationality have seen major recent changes. The consequences for practical rationality have yet to be worked out. Over the past three years a network of experts has held a series of targeted research meetings to address this question.

In this final meeting, we aim to look ahead in time, and beyond the frontiers of research on formal philosophical approaches to reasoning and decision making. We have five guests: Branden Fitelson, Jeff Helzner, Simon Hutegger, Katya Tentori, and Kevin Zollman. There will also be presentations by many of the network participants listed below.

 

R&D RESEARCH NETWORK

The research network for rationality and decision is led by Jan-Willem Romeijn and Olivier Roy. Members are: Johan van Benthem, Luc Bovens, Richard Bradley, Jacob Chandler, Michael Cozic, Franz Dietrich, Richard Dietz, Igor Douven, Stephan Hartmann, Martin van Hees, Brian Hill, Barteld Kooi, Hannes Leitgeb, Christian List, Eric Pacuit, Jeanne Peijnenburg, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Sonja Smets, Kai Spiekermann, Jan Sprenger, Katie Steele, Annika Wallin, and Jon Williamson.

Over the past years we have extended the network with a number of people: Alexandru Baltag, Seamus Bradley, Mareile Drechsler, Catarina Dutilh-Novaes, Patryk Dziurosz-Serafinowicz, Conrad Heilmann, Ronnie Hermens, Soroush Raffee Rad, and Rory Smead.

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

We invite submissions for a limited number of contributed talks. Please send an anonymized abstract of 1000 words to RatDec2012@rug.nl by April 15. The programme committee consists of the members of the research network. Notifications of acceptance will be sent out by May 15 at the latest.

 

SUMMER SCHOOL Continue Reading »

Women in logic

This [a disconnected link to a logic course webpage] is no way to get women into logic.  The “naughty schoolgirls” Vince Hendricks, an editor of Synthese, probably the most prestigious epistemology journal, anticipates in his logic class will surprise the rest of us.  The kinderwhore fashion is ten years out of date and provides too little clothing for Copenhagen.  In all seriousness, it’s such a throwback (except for the iPod) that I thought it was The Onion.

Hendricks gradually removed the images, beginning with these, which I caught with screen shots.  The page was changed to indicate they come from a magazine spread, which does not mitigate Hendricks’ choice to use cheesecake to advertise logic.  Perhaps mooning is a new transformation rule that he’s taught his students?

A similar arrogance, though not specifically sexist, was noted on the part of Hendricks by the Leiter Report, when he shut down criticisms of creationism.  Leiter  credits the  feminist philosophers blog for breaking the cheesecake story, (I thank them for my first joke,) and you can find more discussion there.  But here on RAIL are the screen shots everyone has asked for as a record of what logic looks like without feminism, even now.