Philosophy Meta-Forum http://www.philosophymetaforum.org ching chang chong Lucian 2017-10-17 03:31:02 I specialize in philosophy of law. Can anyone here name the ground-breaking contributions to of Leiter, Endicott, or Marmor to jurisprudence or philosophy? Francois' most important point is that the sub-discipline of jurisprudence is facing questions of relevance (to anything interesting) and importance, and that many prominent early- or mid-career practitioners have engaged broader philosophical problems as part of how they do phil law. Leiter, Endicott, and Marmor do some pretty traditional stuff - read it, and try to stay interested for few hours. Their work is formally fine, but it will not set the agenda. (As an insider, I genuinely struggle to see how Marmor is even a contender (Endicott is the most sensible, but still not totally obvious - why not David Enoch, for instance?)). Given the state (crisis) of the field, it is not unreasonable to look to someone whose (rigorous and serious) work can move jurisprudence beyond its traditional concerns. <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Are you talking about the back and forth on the Facebook of Francois, some Canadian law professor? That was hysterical. Francois was in full virtue-signalling mode, declaring Oxford's appointment of Chang as brilliant "out of the box" thinking. BL appeared down the comment thread noting that it was actually "in the box" thinking, since Oxford is obsessed with diversity, so they appointed someone who does not work in the field because she's an Asian-American woman. All hell breaks loose, but no one responds to BL's question to "name her important papers in jurisprudence." Super funny. <p> <p><footer>Durandus <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>My kingdom for a screencap. I love it when Leiter decides he has had enough of their bullshit and lets someone have it. <p> <p><footer>Cleanthes <p></footer> <p></blockquote> Erich 2017-10-17 02:37:44 In response to Robert, where I'm at we distinguish publications "during the review period" from items associated with the "whole career." The documents relating to a given case, e.g. a tenure case, have all this tortured wording to distinguish evaluations based on one or the other timeline. We are a research university but without a top flight philosophy program. More than 10 in good places during the review period is a home run. Less than 4, even in good places, is most likely a fail. Between those cases things are fuzzier. I agree that letter writers will tend to ignore this review period stuff and just focus on whole career. Herman 2017-10-17 02:27:10 <blockquote> <p> <p>Especially considering that these days, graduate students need so much more output before even getting hired, I think the most interesting question to come from the discussion was: <p>"May I add a question? Do schools typically count articles written before the job starts for the tenure file? If I have, say, 7 articles before I start, would I be starting over at 0 for purposes of tenure?" <p> <p>Does anybody have information or personal experiences about this? <p> <p><footer>Robert</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>I'm at a good R1. We count all publications, including pubs from grad school. We encourage people to go up early who have the pubs, though we require they take 3 years minimum on the TT. But if you publish a bunch before coming here and then stop publishing, you won't get tenured, even if the # of total publication is enough. You need to show a constant stream of output and evidence that you'll continue publishing after you're tenured. Heraclitus 2017-10-17 00:56:32 <blockquote> <p> <p>Are you talking about the back and forth on the Facebook of Francois, some Canadian law professor? That was hysterical. Francois was in full virtue-signalling mode, declaring Oxford's appointment of Chang as brilliant "out of the box" thinking. BL appeared down the comment thread noting that it was actually "in the box" thinking, since Oxford is obsessed with diversity, so they appointed someone who does not work in the field because she's an Asian-American woman. All hell breaks loose, but no one responds to BL's question to "name her important papers in jurisprudence." Super funny. <p> <p><footer>Durandus <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>My kingdom for a screencap. I love it when Leiter decides he has had enough of their bullshit and lets someone have it. Cleanthes 2017-10-17 00:46:07 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p> <p>One reason to be skeptical of this account is that BL would have been way more pissed than his brief blog comment about the appointment suggested. Chang has to be the least qualified person on that list for the Chair. <p> <p><footer>Placide <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Oh, he's pissed, he's been spreading bile over Facebook. <p> <p><footer>Linda</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Are you talking about the back and forth on the Facebook of Francois, some Canadian law professor? That was hysterical. Francois was in full virtue-signalling mode, declaring Oxford's appointment of Chang as brilliant "out of the box" thinking. BL appeared down the comment thread noting that it was actually "in the box" thinking, since Oxford is obsessed with diversity, so they appointed someone who does not work in the field because she's an Asian-American woman. All hell breaks loose, but no one responds to BL's question to "name her important papers in jurisprudence." Super funny. Durandus 2017-10-17 00:10:11 <blockquote> <p> <p>If you've published hundreds of journal articles and are still looking for a job, I'd think you'd be motivated to hear people's advice for what's wrong with the rest of your file. <p> <p><footer>J.B. <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>He's not a woman? Rabindranath 2017-10-17 00:01:18 <blockquote> <p>A broken clock is right twice a day. (I hereby annul any ableist implications of 'broken'.) <p> <p><footer>Austin <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>"Hereby"? Jesus, man. Ableist against the deaf! Cleanthes 2017-10-16 21:05:22 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>My complaint--and I thought Leiter's complaint--was just that Chang does not work in the area to which this chair is dedicated. I suppose I do take it as obvious that a jurisprudence chair (especially one this prestigious) should go to someone in philosophy of law, though it's fair to ask the questions you do. If they were truly having an impossible time finding, say, a top 50 philosopher of law to take the position, maybe that changes things? I hadn't heard any rumblings of such difficulties, but it's possible I am just not sufficiently in the loop. Their problems filling the Chichele chair were very widely known. <p> <p><footer>Cleanthes <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>People at Oxford say the shortlist included Endicot, Leiter, and Marmor, all philosophers of law, though at some point in the process Leiter withdrew. The other rumor at Oxford is that the electoral board was quite divided, and it was the non-philosophers who threw the vote to Chang. <p> <p><footer>Alison</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>One reason to be skeptical of this account is that BL would have been way more pissed than his brief blog comment about the appointment suggested. Chang has to be the least qualified person on that list for the Chair. <p> <p><footer>Placide <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>This is just one of many instances in recent memory that Oxford has done this. I don't see why people are so surprised. It's a joke back there. Yu 2017-10-16 20:22:24 <blockquote> <p> <p> <p>One reason to be skeptical of this account is that BL would have been way more pissed than his brief blog comment about the appointment suggested. Chang has to be the least qualified person on that list for the Chair. <p> <p><footer>Placide <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Oh, he's pissed, he's been spreading bile over Facebook. Linda 2017-10-16 19:49:19 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Shelley Tremain right on cue! Priceless. <p> <p><footer>Austin <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>To be fair, I kinda agree with her on this one <p> <p><footer>Yuri <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Why? "This one" seems particularly bizarre. The authors of this study are interested in possible underrepresentation of women. If that's the topic in which they're interested, why (and how) would they say anything in particular about disabled women? Isaiah 2017-10-16 19:18:56 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Shelley Tremain right on cue! Priceless. <p> <p><footer>Austin <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>To be fair, I kinda agree with her on this one <p> <p><footer>Yuri <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>A broken clock is right twice a day. (I hereby annul any ableist implications of 'broken'.) Austin 2017-10-16 18:58:26 <blockquote> <p> <p>Shelley Tremain right on cue! Priceless. <p> <p><footer>Austin <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>To be fair, I kinda agree with her on this one Yuri 2017-10-16 18:54:28 It sounds similar in the sense that here too there was a mismatch between the area of the chair and the appointee. Leslie 2017-10-16 18:40:47 They do their best to spin the results, but they only found a significant underrepresentation of women at one of the four journals examined. In other words, there is little to no evidence of systemic underrepresentation, save for that one journal. And as many have noted, there are several possible explanations for even that small result. Martin 2017-10-16 18:30:00 Shelley Tremain right on cue! Priceless. Austin 2017-10-16 18:22:24 Perhaps the most important thing to realize about this is that not a single rational person thinks that women are "underrepresented" in good philosophy journals because of sexism. Anyone who claims to believe that is lying. This is part of an ongoing power grab, not an honest attempt to right a perceived wrong. Edgar 2017-10-16 17:28:36 If the SJWs manage to destroy blind peer review, then they will have completely succeeded in destroying philosophy as a serious academic discipline. I mean, they are well on the way to that now, but this would be it. Gottlob 2017-10-16 17:11:11 I clicked on the link, but stopped reading at "forthcoming in Hypatia." Ullin 2017-10-16 17:05:42 Today at Daily Nous: http://dailynous.com/2017/10/16/women-philosophers-underrepresented-top-ethics-journals-guest-post/ We already know that when there is strong positive discrimination in favor of women on the job market. Let's make things even less fair by considering quotas or other mechanisms to inflate publication. After all, if double-blind review means women publish less, obviously that means double-blind review is magically sexist. Alfred 2017-10-16 16:15:23 <blockquote> <p> <p>King's appointed Sherrilyn Roush (an epistemologist) to a chair in philosophy and medicine. That didn't work out and she moved to UCLA. It sounds like a similar thing is happening here. <p> <p><footer>Aleksei <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>How does it "sound" like that, when you know basically nothing about the situation? Nae 2017-10-16 15:35:31 King's appointed Sherrilyn Roush (an epistemologist) to a chair in philosophy and medicine. That didn't work out and she moved to UCLA. It sounds like a similar thing is happening here. Aleksei 2017-10-16 15:21:48 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>My complaint--and I thought Leiter's complaint--was just that Chang does not work in the area to which this chair is dedicated. I suppose I do take it as obvious that a jurisprudence chair (especially one this prestigious) should go to someone in philosophy of law, though it's fair to ask the questions you do. If they were truly having an impossible time finding, say, a top 50 philosopher of law to take the position, maybe that changes things? I hadn't heard any rumblings of such difficulties, but it's possible I am just not sufficiently in the loop. Their problems filling the Chichele chair were very widely known. <p> <p><footer>Cleanthes <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>People at Oxford say the shortlist included Endicot, Leiter, and Marmor, all philosophers of law, though at some point in the process Leiter withdrew. The other rumor at Oxford is that the electoral board was quite divided, and it was the non-philosophers who threw the vote to Chang. <p> <p><footer>Alison</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>One reason to be skeptical of this account is that BL would have been way more pissed than his brief blog comment about the appointment suggested. Chang has to be the least qualified person on that list for the Chair. Placide 2017-10-16 15:06:55 Themistius maybe it would be good for you to log off for the day. It seems like you're having a rough time with something. Nicolaus 2017-10-16 13:48:52 I am also at a large R1 university and whenever I notice you are involved in students' associations for me it's a red flag: you are likely to be a commie and we really dont need another one. We already have JB and X, and Y, and Z and they are already ruining the department. <p> <p> <p>So yes, perhaps JB wants to hire the president of the undergrad faculty club just because it's a code for "commie" Bertrand 2017-10-16 13:23:17 <a href="http://www.katykatikate.com/2017/10/next-level-rage-stroke-harvey-fucking.html?m=1">This</a> <p> seems relevant here, and helps to answer Linus' disingenuous question. Especially relevant passage: <p> <p>"Oh, you're shocked? <p> <p>Really? Really. REALLY? Pay a-fucking-ttention, CHAD. When you chew up fifteen minutes of my day expressing your total galloping dumbfounded astonishment that the guy that every woman in Hollywood knew was a predator turned out to be a fucking predator, that tells me three things: 1) You don't talk to very many women about what it's like to be a woman, and 2) You don't listen to me, ever, and 3) you don't believe women when they tell you that something feels creepy, off, or weird about Harvey. <p> <p>Guarantee you this conversation happened about 40,000 times over the last 20 years: <p> <p>Female Actress: Hey, Harvey just asked me to meet in his hotel room tonight about the script. <p>Male Actor: Oh really? <p>FA: Yeah, did he ask you too? <p>MA: No... but I'm sure it's fine. <p>FA: I don't know, it feels a little weird. <p>MA: Listen, it's Harvey Weinstein. I'm sure it's fine. <p>FA: I guess, but, you know, you hear things. <p>MA: People love to talk about powerful guys. Everyone wants to take him down. <p>FA: Yeah, that's true. <p>MA: You're probably just nervous. This could be a great opportunity for you. <p>FA: You're right." <p> <p>The fictional "Chad" in this example resembled metabros and how they fail to understand reality. Much like the OP says, the behaviors in the dialogue don't logically entail that there is a problem with Weinstein, but really they basically guarantee it. Themistius 2017-10-16 12:12:10 If you've published hundreds of journal articles and are still looking for a job, I'd think you'd be motivated to hear people's advice for what's wrong with the rest of your file. J.B. 2017-10-16 05:12:25 <blockquote> <p>^^^Has no ability to reply to Olympiodorus' point. <p><footer>Hibat <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>What point? Linus 2017-10-16 03:24:31 households communicating 1000 inquires <p> <p>1000 uncertainties because of adults <a href=http://latamdatefraud.over-blog.com/>latamdate review</a> critical should you premium conversations inside of a romantic relationship, Or a married relationship? via a cell one in your inventory, it's very possible that you and your spouse is not going to survive with these, endlessly. marriage appraised <a href=http://bayofdeals.com/best-products/latamdate/>latamdate review</a> that many 83% created by divorce would never be held just in case young families wondered additional definitely the right enquiries when they were adult dating, and above all when they were married. and it's a real undeniable fact if the precise a few questions used to be wanted to know plus personals, in place in no way will be a marriage at the start. You has been <a href=http://www.iceland-dating.com/stefnumotaumsagnir/latamdate.com>latamdate review</a> on your way to someone you were in fact compatible with a lot sooner. recommendations on how harmonious have you been currently and whomever an individual accompanied by? How are you planning to find this key fact and also? even if you have a few things in keeping, such as same kinds of dishes, and so music doesn't indicate that you'll have a lifetime potential future together. have you figured out how your incredible lover does in addition to isn't going to be present before church? Do you understand how they really find the way you wedding dress, ghanaians you really associate with, and / or this political looks at? can be really designated "knowing one an additional, Why think over half of all the your marriage end in divorce lawyer atlanta? the entire family make use of cop out "may perhaps have modified, the minute significantly these products will not ever spent the time to get the hang of various other in the beginning. regarding conduct inside all of these same struggles, Then i recommend to yourself 1000 uncertainties with twosomes. there are countless exhilarating "getting to know your organization" a lot of questions operating in 1000 of adults, also you will find important pros and cons that most people save time before ought to, Or even think of saying to. but you are essential if you need to stand an improved chance at a happy spousal relationship. next going through the questions, much of what many irritates your lover, What ensures they burgandy, together with the thing circumstances a new love is always passionate about. you need to know all sides of your someone special, and choose if see your face if so fits your needs, Your rises including your philosophy. If both of you clear-cut conclusion all the questions seen in 1000 Questions with regards to Couple, occasions you know additional far better 99% coming from all twosomes on the facial skin of the planet. <p> Mou 2017-10-16 02:20:25 Ever do something dangerous and harmful while you knew (or simply believed) that it would end badly? Perhaps you haven’t. Maybe that’s good for you Harry 2017-10-16 02:06:35 The other three are pretty bad as explanations of ‘John can’. I’m not going to read these papers, but I’m willing to entertain the question what it means to say someone can do something. Harry 2017-10-16 02:00:56 Their home is where their heart is. Gottfried 2017-10-16 01:20:33 I have 0 papers in Nous. Dong 2017-10-16 00:27:15 Yeah...if that's true that they could have appointed Endicott or Marmor (and you would think the former at least would be unlikely to turn down a local promotion), this really stinks. And you hardly need to have been another candidate passed over for the position to see it. Cleanthes 2017-10-15 22:59:17 [Trigger warning for: ants, genuine philosophy] <p> <p>According to Kieran Setiya in his essay linked in the OP, <p> <p>"When we act for reasons, we act “under the guise of the good.” This calls for evaluative capacities ants probably lack. But I don’t think the claim is true. What is true is that, in acting for a reason, you take your reason to explain what you are doing, to be a reason why you are doing it. For instance, you know that you are reading this post in order to learn about philosophy through ants, but that doesn’t mean you think it’s a good idea." <p> <p>Isn't the "guise of the good" stuff pretty much dogma in philosophy? I find it hard to imagine doing something for a reason without thinking that it is a GOOD reason. Hilary 2017-10-15 21:51:09 Tai - why would Yuri's lack of severe autism mean that he thinks The Daily Ant is "creepy"? Jaakko 2017-10-15 21:48:22 <blockquote> <p> <p>I like turtles <p> <p><footer>Sri <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Why? Onora 2017-10-15 21:45:01 There are some jobs this year. You just have to look, wait, and hope, then apply. Try to apply for jobs in your area, though you can even apply for jobs that don't quite ask for your interests if you want. Onora 2017-10-15 21:44:34 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>The Prosblogion has a write-up: http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/2017/10/10/a-muslim-a-jew-and-a-christian-walk-onto-a-stage-report-on-the-templeton-prize-ceremony-for-alvin-plantinga/ <p> <p><footer>Karen <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Serious question because I don't know the answer - does Plantinga think that two of the three mentioned in the title are on a trajectory to hell? <p> <p><footer>Jamal <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>As I understand it, Plantinga leans towards universal salvation. <p> <p><footer>Alasdair <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Christ didn't believe that, but hey, pretty much everyone these days ignores the Bible, so why not the philosophical theologians too? <p> <p><footer>Emerich <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Do you think that Alvin Plantinga and Brian Leiter will be in heaven together? What will they talk about? Will they smile? Agostino 2017-10-15 21:41:58 ^^^Has no ability to reply to Olympiodorus' point. Hibat 2017-10-15 21:40:46 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>My complaint--and I thought Leiter's complaint--was just that Chang does not work in the area to which this chair is dedicated. I suppose I do take it as obvious that a jurisprudence chair (especially one this prestigious) should go to someone in philosophy of law, though it's fair to ask the questions you do. If they were truly having an impossible time finding, say, a top 50 philosopher of law to take the position, maybe that changes things? I hadn't heard any rumblings of such difficulties, but it's possible I am just not sufficiently in the loop. Their problems filling the Chichele chair were very widely known. <p> <p><footer>Cleanthes <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>People at Oxford say the shortlist included Endicot, Leiter, and Marmor, all philosophers of law, though at some point in the process Leiter withdrew. The other rumor at Oxford is that the electoral board was quite divided, and it was the non-philosophers who threw the vote to Chang. <p> <p><footer>Alison</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>#peoplearesaying Frank 2017-10-15 21:38:55 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor and Chang are both better philosophers than anyone who posts on here is or ever will be (let's just acknowledge that so we don't need to listen to people who want to talk shit), but I agree that Chang is a non-ideal appointment for the post. She's great and I can see that if you're distributing chairs there is a case for using it to get the best person if there's not an amazing philosopher of law that you can appoint, but I think it's sad that Oxford didn't find the right post for Chang and appoint a top philosopher of law to that chair. <p> <p><footer>Nikolai <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor's a better philosopher than anyone who posts here? You can't be serious. <p> <p>Half the people in the room at Oxford, including many of the graduate students, are superior philosophers to her. <p> <p><footer>Emerich <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>With two papers in Nous? Explain plz. <p> <p><footer>Meister <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Who cares? Everyone knows the journal system is a sham. <p> <p>And in any case, anyone who has seen her in action in a seminar situation knows the emperor has no clothes. <p> <p><footer>Emerich <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Such sad garbage, with nothing but innuendo and vitriol to back it up. Emerich is cowardly and resentful. Journals and prestigious appointments track quality, including in these cases, and baseless anonymous assertions from people whose own quality is of course under wraps adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge of these cases. Frank 2017-10-15 21:38:02 <blockquote> <p> <p>Last year I read two letters for different applicants from the same writer that were nearly identical. Shit, it might have been three. They all mentioned how active the candidate was in department activities, etc. It was so embarrassing. I considered writing her to let her know that she was doing her students a huge disfavor. . . . In general, I ignore letters. I'm not even sure if I read the letters of the person we hired. . . . One of my colleagues though seems to think that letters from people at fancy places are really impressive. This colleague is old style continental, so that's expected. . . . <p> <p> <p> <p><footer>Luis <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>I have had similar experiences. What's wrong with these lazy faculty? Philippa 2017-10-15 21:22:28 <blockquote> <p> <p>My complaint--and I thought Leiter's complaint--was just that Chang does not work in the area to which this chair is dedicated. I suppose I do take it as obvious that a jurisprudence chair (especially one this prestigious) should go to someone in philosophy of law, though it's fair to ask the questions you do. If they were truly having an impossible time finding, say, a top 50 philosopher of law to take the position, maybe that changes things? I hadn't heard any rumblings of such difficulties, but it's possible I am just not sufficiently in the loop. Their problems filling the Chichele chair were very widely known. <p> <p><footer>Cleanthes <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>People at Oxford say the shortlist included Endicot, Leiter, and Marmor, all philosophers of law, though at some point in the process Leiter withdrew. The other rumor at Oxford is that the electoral board was quite divided, and it was the non-philosophers who threw the vote to Chang. Alison 2017-10-15 20:27:27 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor and Chang are both better philosophers than anyone who posts on here is or ever will be (let's just acknowledge that so we don't need to listen to people who want to talk shit), but I agree that Chang is a non-ideal appointment for the post. She's great and I can see that if you're distributing chairs there is a case for using it to get the best person if there's not an amazing philosopher of law that you can appoint, but I think it's sad that Oxford didn't find the right post for Chang and appoint a top philosopher of law to that chair. <p> <p><footer>Nikolai <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor's a better philosopher than anyone who posts here? You can't be serious. <p> <p>Half the people in the room at Oxford, including many of the graduate students, are superior philosophers to her. <p> <p><footer>Emerich <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>With two papers in Nous? Explain plz. <p> <p><footer>Meister <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Who cares? Everyone knows the journal system is a sham. <p> <p>And in any case, anyone who has seen her in action in a seminar situation knows the emperor has no clothes. Emerich 2017-10-15 19:40:13 <blockquote> <p> <p>My complaint--and I thought Leiter's complaint--was just that Chang does not work in the area to which this chair is dedicated. I suppose I do take it as obvious that a jurisprudence chair (especially one this prestigious) should go to someone in philosophy of law, though it's fair to ask the questions you do. If they were truly having an impossible time finding, say, a top 50 philosopher of law to take the position, maybe that changes things? I hadn't heard any rumblings of such difficulties, but it's possible I am just not sufficiently in the loop. Their problems filling the Chichele chair were very widely known. <p> <p><footer>Cleanthes <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Word on the street is that part of Leiter's complaint is that he wished the chair had gone to... someone closer to home. Hastings 2017-10-15 19:21:21 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor and Chang are both better philosophers than anyone who posts on here is or ever will be (let's just acknowledge that so we don't need to listen to people who want to talk shit), but I agree that Chang is a non-ideal appointment for the post. She's great and I can see that if you're distributing chairs there is a case for using it to get the best person if there's not an amazing philosopher of law that you can appoint, but I think it's sad that Oxford didn't find the right post for Chang and appoint a top philosopher of law to that chair. <p> <p><footer>Nikolai <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor's a better philosopher than anyone who posts here? You can't be serious. <p> <p>Half the people in the room at Oxford, including many of the graduate students, are superior philosophers to her. <p> <p><footer>Emerich <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>With two papers in Nous? Explain plz. Meister 2017-10-15 19:12:56 My complaint--and I thought Leiter's complaint--was just that Chang does not work in the area to which this chair is dedicated. I suppose I do take it as obvious that a jurisprudence chair (especially one this prestigious) should go to someone in philosophy of law, though it's fair to ask the questions you do. If they were truly having an impossible time finding, say, a top 50 philosopher of law to take the position, maybe that changes things? I hadn't heard any rumblings of such difficulties, but it's possible I am just not sufficiently in the loop. Their problems filling the Chichele chair were very widely known. Cleanthes 2017-10-15 17:50:36 <blockquote> <p> <p>No, T, but I'm not on there. What is being said? I don't know anything about Magidor, but I agree with Leiter about Chang. It's ludicrous that they couldn't find an actual philosopher of law to fill that position. Hart, Dworkin, Gardner, ...Chang? Really? <p> <p><footer>Cleanthes <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Can we step back from this case and think about the general issue? If you had the power to decide who got a chair that's a chair in area X, you are struggling to appoint someone in X that's great, and you have a philosopher you could appoint only by giving them a chair who is superior to those who will come to work on X, is it obvious that you don't give the chair to the best philosopher you can appoint? <p> <p>(How much can we assume about Oxford's power to attract top talent to the UK? Wouldn't the pay and workload be worse at Oxford than R1 institutions in the states? I can't tell from the above whether the problem is a judgment about the particular philosopher, a judgment about letting a chair in X go to someone who isn't working in that area, and whether the problem is being framed in the wrong way because of unreasonable assumptions about who Oxford can poach. (I sort of assume that they can get top people in the UK or the handful of people willing to move to the UK at a cut in salary and/or increase in workload--I might be wrong in this.)) Michèle 2017-10-15 17:25:22 Sorry for the typos--I was on the phone. <p> Emerich 2017-10-15 15:56:09 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor and Chang are both better philosophers than anyone who posts on here is or ever will be (let's just acknowledge that so we don't need to listen to people who want to talk shit), but I agree that Chang is a non-ideal appointment for the post. She's great and I can see that if you're distributing chairs there is a case for using it to get the best person if there's not an amazing philosopher of law that you can appoint, but I think it's sad that Oxford didn't find the right post for Chang and appoint a top philosopher of law to that chair. <p> <p><footer>Nikolai <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor's a better philosopher than anyone who posts here? You can't be serious. <p> <p>Half the people in the room at Oxford, including many of the graduate students, are superior philosophers to her. <p> <p><footer>Emerich <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Lol - Emerich gives us either parody of a very serious case of resentment, much like this entire thread. Extremely pathetic stuff. <p> <p><footer>Posidonius <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>The "resentment" slogan is losing its lister quick. When the hires are so bad that everyone knows what is and above is true, no one is buying the excuses and deflections. Shame on anyone in this profession who is supporting the decline of philosophy. It could be something beautiful and a force for good, but instead it's being destroyed. The fact that you don't seem to care speaks volumes about the state of your own heart. Emerich 2017-10-15 15:54:10 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor and Chang are both better philosophers than anyone who posts on here is or ever will be <p> <p><footer>Nikolai <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Yeah! And every other diversity at every other level is too, right? <p> <p><footer>Cynthia</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Plausibly, yeah. Pseudo-Dionysius 2017-10-15 11:03:25 <blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor and Chang are both better philosophers than anyone who posts on here is or ever will be <p> <p><footer>Nikolai <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Yeah! And every other diversity at every other level is too, right? Cynthia 2017-10-15 07:27:58 Technically, your thought experiment doesn't make you a worthless piece of shit. But in the real world, you are. Mikhail 2017-10-15 04:54:42 Technically, denying the Holocaust doesn't make you an antisemite. But in the real world, denying the Holocaust is excellent evidence that you are an antisemite. Technically, sleeping in your student's lap on airplanes, or going out drinking with your undergraduate student and having her sleep in your bed, doesn't make you a sexual harasser, or abuser of your power (and generally what is known as a "creep" in ordinary language). But in the real world, these behaviors are excellent evidence that you are a harasser, or abuser of your power (and generally what is known as a "creep" in ordinary language). Discuss. Olympiodorus 2017-10-15 03:40:16 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor and Chang are both better philosophers than anyone who posts on here is or ever will be (let's just acknowledge that so we don't need to listen to people who want to talk shit), but I agree that Chang is a non-ideal appointment for the post. She's great and I can see that if you're distributing chairs there is a case for using it to get the best person if there's not an amazing philosopher of law that you can appoint, but I think it's sad that Oxford didn't find the right post for Chang and appoint a top philosopher of law to that chair. <p> <p><footer>Nikolai <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor's a better philosopher than anyone who posts here? You can't be serious. <p> <p>Half the people in the room at Oxford, including many of the graduate students, are superior philosophers to her. <p> <p><footer>Emerich <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Lol - Emerich gives us either parody of a very serious case of resentment, much like this entire thread. Extremely pathetic stuff. Posidonius 2017-10-15 03:33:44 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>The Prosblogion has a write-up: http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/2017/10/10/a-muslim-a-jew-and-a-christian-walk-onto-a-stage-report-on-the-templeton-prize-ceremony-for-alvin-plantinga/ <p> <p><footer>Karen <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Serious question because I don't know the answer - does Plantinga think that two of the three mentioned in the title are on a trajectory to hell? <p> <p><footer>Jamal <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>As I understand it, Plantinga leans towards universal salvation. <p> <p><footer>Alasdair <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Christ didn't believe that, but hey, pretty much everyone these days ignores the Bible, so why not the philosophical theologians too? Emerich 2017-10-15 03:18:28 <blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor and Chang are both better philosophers than anyone who posts on here is or ever will be (let's just acknowledge that so we don't need to listen to people who want to talk shit), but I agree that Chang is a non-ideal appointment for the post. She's great and I can see that if you're distributing chairs there is a case for using it to get the best person if there's not an amazing philosopher of law that you can appoint, but I think it's sad that Oxford didn't find the right post for Chang and appoint a top philosopher of law to that chair. <p> <p><footer>Nikolai <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Magidor's a better philosopher than anyone who posts here? You can't be serious. <p> <p>Half the people in the room at Oxford, including many of the graduate students, are superior philosophers to her. Emerich 2017-10-15 03:10:22 <blockquote> <p> <p>"mereological ontology of simples" <p> <p>Spoken by a true expert LOL <p> <p><footer>Huston <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>It was satire you true genius. Radulphus 2017-10-15 03:06:36 Magidor and Chang are both better philosophers than anyone who posts on here is or ever will be (let's just acknowledge that so we don't need to listen to people who want to talk shit), but I agree that Chang is a non-ideal appointment for the post. She's great and I can see that if you're distributing chairs there is a case for using it to get the best person if there's not an amazing philosopher of law that you can appoint, but I think it's sad that Oxford didn't find the right post for Chang and appoint a top philosopher of law to that chair. Nikolai 2017-10-15 02:58:30 Is Shelley Tremain getting better? She managed to make several comments on the DN thread before accusing anyone of ableism and promoting her own work. (She still did eventually, of course.) Cleanthes 2017-10-15 02:01:55 No, T, but I'm not on there. What is being said? I don't know anything about Magidor, but I agree with Leiter about Chang. It's ludicrous that they couldn't find an actual philosopher of law to fill that position. Hart, Dworkin, Gardner, ...Chang? Really? Cleanthes 2017-10-15 01:31:54 <blockquote> <p> <p>Anyone following the FB discussing of Chang's appointment? <p> <p><footer>T. <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>No, but I'd be interested in a summary. Who is discussing it? Huston 2017-10-15 01:31:45 <blockquote> <p> <p>I'm at a large R1. (I'm also on a hiring committee this year. Maybe I'll read your file.) <p> <p><footer>J.B. <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Cool story, bro. My file will be the one that has much more, and much better, publications than everyone in your department combined. Although I'm sure that the president of the undergrad philosophy club you'll hire instead is better qualified LOL Huston 2017-10-15 01:30:18 Anyone following the FB discussing of Chang's appointment? T. 2017-10-15 01:13:38 <blockquote> <p> <p>how much do you make as a Waynflete professor of philosophy? 120k GBP? <p> <p><footer>Bertrand</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Promoted from within as she was, not that much. Maybe 65K GBP? Anicius 2017-10-15 01:08:02 how much do you make as a Waynflete professor of philosophy? 120k GBP? Bertrand 2017-10-15 00:46:25 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Who does not like poutine? Poutineries are the best reason to move to Canada. <p> <p><footer>Jalal <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>The poutine outside Quebec is mostly awful. You can't replace the curds with grated or string cheese. It doesn't work. <p> <p><footer>Dong <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p>Poutine is awful. but yes, it's still the best thing you can find in Canada. Bertrand 2017-10-14 19:43:38 BZZZ incorrect <p> <p>I'm at a large R1. (I'm also on a hiring committee this year. Maybe I'll read your file.) I'm done helping here. Bye. J.B. 2017-10-14 18:55:37 "mereological ontology of simples" <p> <p>Spoken by a true expert LOL Huston 2017-10-14 18:34:33 <blockquote> <p> <p>Who does not like poutine? Poutineries are the best reason to move to Canada. <p> <p><footer>Jalal <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>The poutine outside Quebec is mostly awful. You can't replace the curds with grated or string cheese. It doesn't work. Dong 2017-10-14 17:42:22 Rush. The apogee of Canadian culture. Heinrich 2017-10-14 17:31:28 <blockquote> <p> <p>Lay off Kaufman--most employed philosophers are more in his kind of situation than at the Leiterific biggies, and he in his own way just speaks to that. Can he be somewhat insufferable? Sure. More so than elites who think that R1s should typify the profession? Doubtful. Students are mostly served by those in the philosophical trenches who teach, teach, teach. Not by e.g. mereological ontology of simples read and taught by maybe a couple hundred people out of 7 billion in the world. <p> <p><footer>Arnold <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>That's fair. And, lest we forget, the K-man is always willing to lay into Kookla and associated dumbasses. Just wish he'd relax a little bit. <p> <p>DK, if you're reading this, treat yourself to a spa day my man! Lao 2017-10-14 17:30:16 Neil Young, Arcade Fire, and Rush are pretty good, too. Huston 2017-10-14 17:16:54 J.B. = Daniel Kaufman <p> <p>yes, please regale us further with tales of your shitty little department and how hiring is conducted there Huston 2017-10-14 17:12:48 Thanks for the downvotes? I thought you were interested in hearing from faculty with experience on search committees, whether or not they said what you wanted to hear. My mistake. J.B. 2017-10-14 16:14:56 Who does not like poutine? Poutineries are the best reason to move to Canada. Jalal 2017-10-14 15:03:22 I think he should take the offer because he looks so damn good in plaid shirts and he loves flapjacks, poutine, and jelly donuts. Heinrich 2017-10-14 14:38:06 If this was in the US, someone could file a Title IX complaint against the organizers. Too bad. Hayashi 2017-10-14 14:07:48 I don't think anyone knows. It may be that Stanley wants to take the offer right now and is telling people that he does, but I doubt that even he is in a position to say at this stage that he will definitely move. Marilyn 2017-10-14 13:55:32 <blockquote> <p> <p>I thought McMahan is in a relationship with Chang, therefore she is coming with him. <p> <p><footer>Anaxagoras <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>No. <p>Definitely not. Thoralf 2017-10-14 12:19:43 Fwiw that wasn't meant to be hostile or challenging, I was genuinely curious. <p> <p>I'd heard about the offer, was curious whether guess he would take it was based on something more specific than the fact that it was made (which already does suggest some level of interest) or not. Isaac 2017-10-14 11:22:45 <blockquote> <p> <p>Based on what? <p> <p><footer>Isaac <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Based on his word. Nancy 2017-10-14 09:37:20 Trump does work! Anaxagoras 2017-10-14 09:09:33 I thought McMahan is in a relationship with Chang, therefore she is coming with him. Anaxagoras 2017-10-14 09:08:09 I don't think they do, but Stanley is planning to move there. Nancy 2017-10-14 08:26:06 UBC also has offers out to Jennifer Saul, Shelley Tremain, and Lauren Leydon-Hardy Günter 2017-10-14 07:22:59 <blockquote> <p> <p>Jason Stanley is moving from Yale to UBC (Canada). <p> <p>Just a guess. <p> <p> <p> <p><footer>Nancy</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>That is a bad guess. Ann 2017-10-14 06:38:36 <p><blockquote> <p>Or learn something new. You learn more from interacting with your peers than you do by sitting at your computer and interacting inly with your supervisor. <p><footer>Dong <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>This is key. You will be a better philosopher if you've spent a lot of time interacting with philosophers. Moreover, you will give me on the hiring committee better reason to think you're a better philosopher if I know you've spent a lot of time interacting with philosophers. You'll also give me evidence that you'll be an engaged and proactive colleague. So yes, I am more likely to hire you if you regularly attend departmental colloquia and have organized a conference or two. J.B. 2017-10-14 05:13:41 (2). <p> <p>(Research institutions are all I know, so they're what I'm talking about.) J.B. 2017-10-14 05:08:54 Lisa Guenther has moved from Vanderbilt to Queen's (Canada). Giacinto 2017-10-14 05:02:17 <blockquote> <p>Does anyone know what is going on at Oxford? <p> <p><footer>Hartry <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Yes, the same thing that is going on everywhere else too - the profession is destroying itself. Stanley 2017-10-14 04:06:15 Well, at least they aren't extreme lightweights, but still, the likes of Oxford should hire the best our discipline has to offer, nothing less. And the only social justice acceptable at that kind of place is a course taught by Sandel. Bernhard 2017-10-14 03:32:57 Oxford jumped the shark a while ago. <p> <p>But there is always good news: juice boxes and oranges for everyone! Yay! Social justice! Carneades 2017-10-14 03:25:14 Lay off Kaufman--most employed philosophers are more in his kind of situation than at the Leiterific biggies, and he in his own way just speaks to that. Can he be somewhat insufferable? Sure. More so than elites who think that R1s should typify the profession? Doubtful. Students are mostly served by those in the philosophical trenches who teach, teach, teach. Not by e.g. mereological ontology of simples read and taught by maybe a couple hundred people out of 7 billion in the world. Arnold 2017-10-14 02:38:53 Is there any explanation for these appointments other than gender/racial preferences? Does anyone know what is going on at Oxford? Hartry 2017-10-14 02:31:59 Kaufman and Tremain should start their own blog so they can both post the same thing in slightly different ways millions of times without spreading that shit to other blogs. Georgi 2017-10-14 02:10:28 Based on what? Isaac 2017-10-14 01:48:27 Writing a medical thesis or dissertation is a task done by almost all postgraduate and master's medical students. Dissertation is derived from the Latin word disserto which means discuss. It is essential to write successful medical papers such as medicine essays and medical thesis papers. There are several reasons as to why students write medicine essays. One of the reasons is to promote enhancement of critical judgment, research skills as well as analytical skills. Moreover, medicine essay writing produce students with the ability to 4evaluate and analyze data critically. <p> <p>The initial step for writing medicine essays is to choose a topic. A writer should have at least three topics to choose from. The topic has to be interesting, feasible and relevant. It is essential to write quality medicine essay. Hence, students need to have analytical skills and perfect writing skills. The writing skills will enable them write outstanding essay papers that can be highly regarded by instructors and professors. Teachers often require a lot and expect a lot from their students in terms of medicine essay writing. for this reason, students find essay writing to be an extremely difficult task and hence resort to buying custom medicine essays. <p> <p>A custom medicine essay has to be written by professional writers who are qualified in the field of nursing. Moreover, the custom medicine essay has to be original and plagiarism free. This means that it has to be written from scratch by experts with many years experience. The many years experience should enable a writer to write any form of medical paper including medical thesis, medicine essay and even medicine research paper. Moreover, experience will enable a writer to write a medicine essay that can guarantee academic success. <p> <p>Students get custom medicine essays from custom writing company. It is essential to choose the best company so that one can get the best custom medicine essay. The best and the most reliable medicine essay writing company should have some unique characteristics such as affordability and the ability to provide original and superior quality medicine essays. The other quality is that the company has to hire expert writers who can write quality medicine essays and other types of medical papers. The essays should not only be quality but also plagiarism free and free of grammatical and spelling mistakes. <p> <p>A custom medicine essay has a similar structure to any other academic essay assignment. It has an introduction that introduces the topic and tells the reader what the essay is all about. The second section is the body that has many paragraphs supporting the main topic. Finally there is the conclusion that briefly summarizes what has been discussed in the body section of the essay. Students should choose reliable writing companies so that they can get quality custom papers on several fields such as technology, sociology and law in addition to medicine field. <p> <p>Our custom writing company is the best company that all clients should rely on when in need of any given type of medicine paper. We provide quality papers that not only plagiarism free but also original. Moreover, our custom papers are affordable and able to guarantee academic excellence at all times. All our medical papers are reliable and sure of satisfying clients at all times. <p> <p>  Pietro 2017-10-14 01:07:17 Jason Stanley is moving from Yale to UBC (Canada). Just a guess. Nancy 2017-10-14 01:01:45