philosophy meta-forum

What article has the worst influence to quality ratio?

Jacques

20 day(s) ago

My guess: Williams' The Makropulos Case

Harriet

20 day(s) ago

I mean, the ideas hidden deep inside that article are deep and important and they occur now in multiple literatures. But yeah, awful awful presentation of them.

Paul

20 day(s) ago

His paper on reasons internalism has to be a contender, too. That bullshit about Jim and the Indians also has to be a contender.

Cleomedes

20 day(s) ago

Epistemology Naturalized by Quine.

Anything by Rawls.

Anything by Kymlicka.

Catherine

20 day(s) ago

Gettier cases

Frankfurt cases

Zhuang

20 day(s) ago

Epistemology Naturalized by Quine.

Anything by Rawls.

Anything by Kymlicka.

Cleomedes

Troll.

Hervaeus

20 day(s) ago

Freeman's "Illiberal Libertarians" is pretty much pure shit.

Antiphon

20 day(s) ago

C'mon about Gettier and Frankfurt. Ed just came up with an ingenious end-around of an account of knowledge that had cruised the philosophical mind for 2000 years. Not quality? And Harry as well came up with an account of freedom related to responsibility that didn't depend on the kind of plural metaphysical opportunities explicitly touted in libertarianism since Reid. Low quality? Let's see your real name spoken about anything in 100 years. Theirs will.

Rosa

20 day(s) ago

I agree about Frankfurt. But nobody has yet to convince me wtf I should care about Gettier cases. First off, I don't buy your narrative. It's rather simple, after all. Second, even if I bought it: who cares? So justification/knowkedge can't be lucky. Did anyone ever think it could? (Not explicitly formulating something isn't the same as endorsing its negation, after all.)

C'mon about Gettier and Frankfurt. Ed just came up with an ingenious end-around of an account of knowledge that had cruised the philosophical mind for 2000 years. Not quality? And Harry as well came up with an account of freedom related to responsibility that didn't depend on the kind of plural metaphysical opportunities explicitly touted in libertarianism since Reid. Low quality? Let's see your real name spoken about anything in 100 years. Theirs will.

Antiphon

Nicholas

19 day(s) ago

Whatever the fuck McGinn's mind paper is called, that one. What a waste of space.

Ho

19 day(s) ago

Elizabeth Anderson, What's the Point of Equality?

Sebastian

19 day(s) ago

Anything by Nussbaum on the capabilities.

(Not meant to be hate on Nussbaum, her Upheavals of Thought is quite good.)

Rosa

19 day(s) ago

I think the transformative experience stuff is pretty unimpressive. It seems to just be a dressing-up of something psychologists have known for decades (viz., that people are bad at affective forecasting). Hell, philosophers since Socrates have been reminding us that we're bad at knowing what makes us happy.

The original Paul article seemed to just recognize that we're bad at affective forecasting and then argue that it's somehow irrational to rely on third-personal evidence when making important decisions. I don't see the paradox she's so eager to claim exists.

Origen

19 day(s) ago

I agree about Frankfurt. But nobody has yet to convince me wtf I should care about Gettier cases. First off, I don't buy your narrative. It's rather simple, after all. Second, even if I bought it: who cares? So justification/knowkedge can't be lucky. Did anyone ever think it could? (Not explicitly formulating something isn't the same as endorsing its negation, after all.)

C'mon about Gettier and Frankfurt. Ed just came up with an ingenious end-around of an account of knowledge that had cruised the philosophical mind for 2000 years. Not quality? And Harry as well came up with an account of freedom related to responsibility that didn't depend on the kind of plural metaphysical opportunities explicitly touted in libertarianism since Reid. Low quality? Let's see your real name spoken about anything in 100 years. Theirs will.

Antiphon

Rosa

Origen

19 day(s) ago

You ignorant simpleton. For MANY decades a LOT of people more intelligent and informed than you tried and tried to get it right without success.

Rosa

19 day(s) ago

Did they? I'm not a historian of early analytic philosophy, but I don't think giving necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge has been a concern until fairly recently. I'm happy to be corrected though.

More importantly: even if very smart people worked on something, it doesn't mean it's important. Many hours have been wasted on unimportant things. Ever heard the quote "if something is not worth doing, it's not worth doing well"? So even if Gettier solved some puzzle other smart people hadn't, it doesn't mean it's important.

You ignorant simpleton. For MANY decades a LOT of people more intelligent and informed than you tried and tried to get it right without success.

Origen

Origen

19 day(s) ago

Did they? I'm not a historian of early analytic philosophy, but I don't think giving necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge has been a concern until fairly recently. I'm happy to be corrected though.

More importantly: even if very smart people worked on something, it doesn't mean it's important. Many hours have been wasted on unimportant things. Ever heard the quote "if something is not worth doing, it's not worth doing well"? So even if Gettier solved some puzzle other smart people hadn't, it doesn't mean it's important.

You ignorant simpleton. For MANY decades a LOT of people more intelligent and informed than you tried and tried to get it right without success.

Origen

Rosa

Origen

19 day(s) ago

"Fairly recently"? Try Plato's Theaetetus. Also, "many decades" is correct! "EARLY analytic" is irrelevant.

Also, "it does not MEAN it's important," right. So what? The target was this: "So justification/knowkedge can't be lucky. Did anyone ever think it could? (Not explicitly formulating something isn't the same as endorsing its negation, after all.)"

Rosa

19 day(s) ago

If a debate takes a two-thousand-year break--from Plato until the last century--then that's a defeasible sign that the debate itself is not important, as opposed to related questions about justification.

Which brings us to those questions: did Plato, or anyone more recent, think that knowledge/justification could be a matter of luck? If the answer is "no" and Gettier's value is in showing us that knowledge/justification can't be lucky, then it's not a big value. Again, who disagreed? Just because Plato, or someone else, gives a JTB account doesn't mean he thinks J can be a matter of luck. If nobody thought that it could be, then Gettier's attacking nobody in particular and the whole Gettier industry is just a bunch of Sudoku enthusiasts arguing about one another's various ways about filling in details that others before then didn't fill in.

Tzvetan

19 day(s) ago

Fyi, the Gettier PROBLEM is not set in terms of luck. Gettier just showed that you can have JTB without knowledge. Fyi, the appeal to luck is just one particular approach to a SOLUTION.

"If the debate takes a two-thousand-year break, ...," maybe, but I doubt you know this antecedent to be true.

Rosa

19 day(s) ago

That only reinforces my worry about its importance. If Gettier is attacking the JTB account and the only JTB account people mention is Plato, then clearly Gettier has not given a counterexample. Plato's notion of J is a higher standard than the sort of everyday, common sense notion of J that occurs in the two cases. It's not as if Plato thinks that any old notion of J will work. So it's as if Gettier took Plato's general scheme of JTB as the target while replacing Plato's J with something like Moore's J. But *that* view is not obviously one that anyone held (I defer to others here). So it's not as if he's doing something revolutionary by refuting a weird combination of Plato and a Moorean.

Fyi, the Gettier PROBLEM is not set in terms of luck. Gettier just showed that you can have JTB without knowledge. Fyi, the appeal to luck is just one particular approach to a SOLUTION.

"If the debate takes a two-thousand-year break, ...," maybe, but I doubt you know this antecedent to be true.

Tzvetan

Paul

19 day(s) ago

Fwiw, I think there's some controversy over whether the JTB had many if any historical defenders. It's not obvious that Plato's 'true belief with an account' account is one that looks anything like Gettier's target. On one reading of having an account, a thinker cannot have an account of p unless p. There's a nice paper in a recent Phil Perspectives that discusses this issue. I'm on the fence about whether Plato defended anything that Gettier attacked. I'm also on the fence about whether that matters for determining the value of Gettier's paper. Just thought that I'd mention that I share Rosa's skepticism about whether the issues that Gettier addressed were a matter of serious concern in ancient or early modern philosophy.

Rosa

19 day(s) ago

Interesting, thanks. Do you happen to know how the importance of Gettier is defended if he didn't disrupt a millenia-old view? I don't expect you to do my legwork for me, but if you happen to know, I'd be curious to hear.

Fwiw, I think there's some controversy over whether the JTB had many if any historical defenders. It's not obvious that Plato's 'true belief with an account' account is one that looks anything like Gettier's target. On one reading of having an account, a thinker cannot have an account of p unless p. There's a nice paper in a recent Phil Perspectives that discusses this issue. I'm on the fence about whether Plato defended anything that Gettier attacked. I'm also on the fence about whether that matters for determining the value of Gettier's paper. Just thought that I'd mention that I share Rosa's skepticism about whether the issues that Gettier addressed were a matter of serious concern in ancient or early modern philosophy.

Paul

Gabriel

19 day(s) ago

On whether the JTB account had many historical defenders, see Julien Dutant's "The Legend of the Justified True Belief Analysis" (https://philpapers.org/rec/DUTTLO-3). Maria Antognazza's "The Benefit to Philosophy of the Study of its History"

(https://philpapers.org/rec/ANTTBT) also has a good discussion of what the historical conception of knowledge was. To oversimplify, the actual history of epistemology, according to these articles, is as follows. Historically, most major Western philosophers were infallibilists about knowledge (though Dutant and Antognazza differ on the precise details of this infallibilism). Around the middle of the twentieth century, philosophers (especially ordinary language philosophers) became convinced that infallibilism implied skepticism, and so they became fallibilists instead. This was the context in which the JTB account was put forward, by Malcolm and others: as a way to be a fallibilist, and so avoid skepticism. Then came Gettier, and the subsequent history is well- known. As Dutant puts it (p. 115): "Far from being a long-held conception, the Justified True Belief analysis’s shelf-life was a mere eleven years."

I think Gettier still has an important place in this history of epistemology, but it's a different place from his place in the legendary history. The way I present Gettier to my students is this: historically, most philosophers were infallibilists; but that seems to lead to skepticism; so if we want to avoid skepticism, it seems we need to be fallibilists; the JTB account is the simplest fallibilist account; but Gettier showed that that account is untenable. So Gettier's importance is in making it harder to be a fallibilist by knocking down the most obvious formulation of fallibilism.

Héctor-Neri

19 day(s) ago

Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy

Clarence

19 day(s) ago

Interesting, thanks. Do you happen to know how the importance of Gettier is defended if he didn't disrupt a millenia-old view? I don't expect you to do my legwork for me, but if you happen to know, I'd be curious to hear.

Fwiw, I think there's some controversy over whether the JTB had many if any historical defenders. It's not obvious that Plato's 'true belief with an account' account is one that looks anything like Gettier's target. On one reading of having an account, a thinker cannot have an account of p unless p. There's a nice paper in a recent Phil Perspectives that discusses this issue. I'm on the fence about whether Plato defended anything that Gettier attacked. I'm also on the fence about whether that matters for determining the value of Gettier's paper. Just thought that I'd mention that I share Rosa's skepticism about whether the issues that Gettier addressed were a matter of serious concern in ancient or early modern philosophy.

Paul

Rosa

Clarence

19 day(s) ago

Interesting, thanks. Do you happen to know how the importance of Gettier is defended if he didn't disrupt a millenia-old view? I don't expect you to do my legwork for me, but if you happen to know, I'd be curious to hear.

Fwiw, I think there's some controversy over whether the JTB had many if any historical defenders. It's not obvious that Plato's 'true belief with an account' account is one that looks anything like Gettier's target. On one reading of having an account, a thinker cannot have an account of p unless p. There's a nice paper in a recent Phil Perspectives that discusses this issue. I'm on the fence about whether Plato defended anything that Gettier attacked. I'm also on the fence about whether that matters for determining the value of Gettier's paper. Just thought that I'd mention that I share Rosa's skepticism about whether the issues that Gettier addressed were a matter of serious concern in ancient or early modern philosophy.

Paul

Rosa

Clarence

19 day(s) ago

It is false that Plato had a JTB account. It is false that he accepted ANY account. Right, the unifying question across millenia is not whether JTB is the right account. It is rather how best to understand what knowledge is, if that can be understood through analysis. It's not even clear that Plato thought that it can be so understood, and it seems pretty clear that Williamson does not think so. But that does not stop either of therm from joining the millenia-long thread, with extensive and illuminating contributions.

Jacques

19 day(s) ago

OP here. I think we should publish an anthology. We can call it 'Articles You Shouldn't Read But Probably Won't Be Able To Avoid Reading Anyway'. It's gonna sell like hot-cakes.

Jacques

19 day(s) ago

except it seems that we cant agree what to put in...

posts per page.