A discussion on the intellectual virtues of “blind deference” and “perseverance”.
A discussion on the intellectual virtues of “blind deference” and “perseverance”.
India witnessed a powerful protest for last few weeks since November 2, 2014 namely ‘Kiss of Love’. This is a protest where people kiss in public to register their protest against moral policing. Many of the supporters of Kiss of Love protest (hence forth KoL) has referred to elements of the tradition: the sculptures in Khajurāho temples, texts such as Kāmasutra, Gitā Govinda, religious gatherings such as Kumbha mela etc. to make a point in arguments. They points out that all these elements of tradition which mentioned above indicates that emphasis on sexuality, nudity, eroticism etc. are part of the tradition (by presuming that art and literature often reflects tendencies in traditions/cultures).
Is it the case that though they -these supporters of KoL- seemingly opposing the moral policing of Hindutva, they are implicitly exhibiting a commitment to Hinduism, if not to Hindutva, by referring to elements of tradition? Some seem to think so. Do you think so? I do not think so: I do not think that the fact that many of the supporters of KoL has referred to some such elements of tradition indicates their commitment to tradition, Hinduism, or Hindutva. Why do I say that?
Please consider 2 types of arguments related to the Kol:
1. Argument from tradition (AFT): Many who opposes KoL, has argued that activities such as expression of affection in public is not in compliance with our (Indian) tradition. Therefore KoL is not acceptable. Let me call this argument as ‘argument from tradition’ (AFT).
2. Argument from internal contradiction (AIC): Many who supports KoL points out that the AFT (‘argument from tradition’ mentioned above), is fraught with difficulties. This is because of the fact that there are elements in the tradition itself which will undercut AFT by resulting in a contradiction . Let me call this argument as Argument from internal contradiction (AIC).
Some who have discussed about KoL, it seems to me, have invoked the following argument: those who present AIC (Argument from internal contradiction) are committed to tradition in a disguised manner. Many supporters of KoL have invoked, AIC. Therefore, they conclude, many supporters of KoL are committed to tradition. As far as I can see, such a conclusion does not logically follow. One can clearly see that such a conclusion does not follow, if one construes and examines the premises of the argument carefully.
Please consider the following:
Suppose R holds Tb, a theory T about b. How does someone else, let us say K, criticise R for holding Tb? Two important techniques to do it are the following:
Case1: First technique is: show that if R were to consider Xb, another theory X about b, then R can no longer hold Tb rationally (Showing this will involve to show that in some important way Xb undermine Tb).
Case 2: Second technique is: show that if R were to consider the details of Tb, then R will see that there are propositions t1 and t2 within the theory Tb which are contradictory. Thus R can no longer hold Tb rationally.
In the above mentioned two techniques of criticising a theory, the latter is stronger than the former. This is so because:
(a) In case 1, R can (rationally) say that (s)he does not believe Xb (the alternate theory) and does not take it seriously (due to reason z).
(b) In case 2, R cannot (rationally) say that (s)he does not believe in t1 or t2 and thus does not take it/them seriously. R cannot (rationally) say this since t1 and t2 are subsets of the set Tb to which R is committed.
The second approach criticises the theory Tb in its own terms. The first approach criticises the theory Tb in terms of/ by making use of some other theory. Criticising a theory in its own terms is stronger than criticising a theory in terms of/making use of other theories. That is to say that case 2 is stronger than case 1. It is stronger since, in this case the advocate of the theory cannot defend by saying that (s)he does not believe in t1 or t2 (since, as I already mentioned above, t1 and t2 are subsets of the theory Tb to which R is committed to). That explains, I believe, as to why case 2 is stronger than case 1.
Illegitimate charge on the critic: While the critic K points out the contradictory nature of t1 and t2, K need not be committed to t1, t2, or Tb. Thus, the claim that K is committed to Tb does not logically follow from the fact that (s)he has referred to t1 and/or t2. Claiming that K has a commitment to Tb is to make a (logically) illegitimate charge against K. (It very well can be the case that K is indeed committed to Tb, but the point here is, one cannot make this claim on the basis of the kind of argument provided . One needs some other argument(s) to show that indeed K is committed to Tb)
Unfortunately, in many of the discussions on KoL, I am afraid, this ‘illegitimate charge on the critic’ (which is mentioned above) is presumed. Once such scenario is as follows: many of the supporters of KoL has pointed out that, the sculptures in Khajurāho temples, texts such as Kāmasutra, Geetā Govindam, religious gatherings such as Kumbh mela, etc. are also part of the tradition which the proponents of AFT (Argument from tradition) invokes. But these elements of tradition are explicit in describing sexuality, nudity, eroticism etc.
That is to say that there are elements in the tradition itself -which AFT invokes- that will undercut the claim made by AFT: the claim that activities such as expression of affection in public, emphasis on sexuality, nudity etc. is not in compliance with our (Indian) tradition. They (some of the supporters of KoL) were simply pointing out that all these elements of tradition which mentioned above indicates that emphasis on sexuality, nudity, eroticism etc. are very much an acceptable part of the tradition (by presuming that art and literature often reflects tendencies in traditions/cultures). That is to say that invoking AFT to criticise KoL is fraught with difficulties. Pointing out this problem of AFT no way implies (logically) that the one who points out these elements of tradition is committed to the tradition or any of its subsets: it does not logically follow.
That is to say that if K points out t1 or/and t2, It does not imply that K is committed to Tb, t1 or t2. When a KoL supporter points out elements in tradition such as the above mentioned ones -(the sculptures in Khajurāho temples, texts such as Kāmasutra, Geetā Govindam, religious gatherings such as Kumbha mela etc.)- (s)he is making the argument namely AIC (Argument from Internal Contradiction) against AFT (argument from tradition).
As I already explained, AIC is a stronger argumentative technique (because of reason ‘a’ and ‘b’ that I already elaborated) than many other techniques (such as Case 1 that I explained). That shows in what way referring to the elements of tradition such as the above mentioned kind is an important argumentative strategy against AFT.
That makes it clear that the supporters of KoL who refers to elements of the tradition to points out the contradiction in AFT no way are (logically) implying that they (the supporter of KoL) are committed to the tradition, Hindusim or Hindutva in any explicit or implicit manner. To deny this, which unfortunately many seem to have done, I am afraid, is to violate basic rules of reasoning.
The decision of the Co-Editors of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science is that the Sir Karl Popper Prize for 2014 should be awarded to Rachael L. Brown for her paper ‘What Evolvability Really Is’ (Br J Philos Sci , 65, pp. 549-72). The paper is free to read here: http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/549.full
The prize is awarded for the best of those papers appearing in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science that concern themselves with topics in the philosophy of science to which Sir Karl made a contribution. The prize is awarded on the basis of the judgement of the Editors (in liaison with the BSPS Committee, as the Editors see fit) from papers appearing in that year’s volume of the BJPS.
The concept of evolvability has attracted increasing interest within the philosophy of biology, yet it remains conceptually muddled. By focusing on the theoretical roles played by ‘evolvability’ in ‘evo-devo’ and evolutionary biology more generally, Brown aims to both clarify the notion and offer a unified account of it. Her analysis is driven by a case study on the evolution of primate limbs and within that context she picks out a role for ‘evolvability-based’ explanations that complements other explanatory approaches in evolutionary biology. This allows her to identify the core (categorical) properties that evolvability (as a dispositional property of populations) must supervene on and in terms of which she constructs a probabilistic account of the notion. Within that formal framework, various hypotheses concerning evolvability can then be represented and the factors relevant to assessing their truth illuminated.
Thus, Brown’s paper represents an important contribution to the foundations of evolutionary biology. It relates its central explication of evolvability to an accessible and engaging case study in particular, and to a range of issues in the philosophy of science more generally, thus illustrating the power of an integrated approach to the topic. In all these respects, and especially by bringing the technical, scientific, and philosophical features of the issue together in such a deft and thought-provoking manner, it stands as a worthy winner of this year’s BSPS Popper Prize in the philosophy of science.
Kids are very much Philosophical than we (often) think they are. I am convinced of this ever after I taught kids who range from 3rd to 7th standards (grades) for an year. Often the mechanical and teacher centered (rather than student centred) educational system kills the Philosphical spiriti of kids. HERE is a small peice of writing by a third standard (3rd grade) student in the KIDS PHILOSOPHY SLAM conducted in USA.
Normally, self-affirmation is reserved for instances in which identity is threatened in direct ways: race, gender, age, weight, and the like. Here, Nyhan decided to apply it in an unrelated context: Could recalling a time when you felt good about yourself make you more broad-minded about highly politicized issues, like the Iraq surge or global warming? As it turns out, it would. On all issues, attitudes became more accurate with self-affirmation, and remained just as inaccurate without. That effect held even when no additional information was presented—that is, when people were simply asked the same questions twice, before and after the self-affirmation.
The question of why people persistently hold onto false beliefs has long been of interest to philosophers, and has received increased attention in the social sciences. An article in the New Yorker summarizes some recent experimental work on correcting false beliefs. As it turns out, providing correct information to…
View original post 269 more words
TYPE: PhD Fellowship in Epistemology
INSTITUTION: KU Leuven
LOCATION: Leuven, Belgium
The Centre for Logic and Analytic Philosophy at KU Leuven invites
applications for a full-time position as a PhD fellow as part of a research
KNOWLEDGE FIRST VIRTUE EPISTEMOLOGY
which is funded by a KU Leuven OT and an FWO grant (PI: Christoph Kelp) and
will run until 2017/18.
DURATION: 3 years
STARTING DATE: October 1, 2014.
SALARY: approx. EUR 1800/month (after tax).
The candidate will be part of Christoph Kelp’s research group and will work
related to the project. (For further information about the project please
project website at
a detailed description of the project can be downloaded via
At present, there are two doctoral students working in the research group.
Additional hires on postdoctoral level are expected.
The members of the research group will work closely together and are
expected to actively contribute to the project and to activities at the
Centre for Logic and Analytic Philosophy.
* MA (or equivalent) in philosophy
Candidates are requested to submit the following application materials to
* a cover letter
* a CV
* a research proposal on a topic related to the project (max. 1000 words)
* a writing sample
* two names and email addresses of referees who have agreed to write a
letter of recommendation
The deadline for applications is 30.5.2014. Only electronic applications
will be considered.
THE RESEARCH UNIT
The Centre for Logic and Analytic Philosophy is a growing research unit at
KU Leuven. At present it counts 5 senior members of staff, 4 postdocs and 7
PhD students among its members. In 2014/2015, 2 additional seniors members
will join the Centre. The Centre hosts a bi-weekly research seminar and
various workshops and conferences.
The Official Blog of the American Philosophical Association
Exploring Knowledge as a Social Phenomenon
Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology
Heresies of the Intellect
J. R. Joel Flores-Mariscal
escape(s) from being...
An attempt to provide Information about Philosophy in India
DISSENT, DEBATE, CREATE
Play-Doh for the Mind
Intersectional Feminism—Desi Style!
Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time
A Pluralistic Exploration of Philosophy and Culture
refracting theory: politics, cybernetics, philosophy
Religion Philosophy Christianity Theology Logic Reason
by Karin Susan Fester
Ponderings of science, philosophy, history, society, and many other topics
philosophy & snacks
Fides quaerens intellectum
Philosophy of everything. Aphorisms, articles & fiction by Your Joyful Benefactor
Weblog devoted to the philosophy of language, metaphysics and philosophical logic
View the latest questions and answers
-the near-unconsciousness of possible meanings -
A blog about Reasoning, Argumentation, and Informal Logic
A collaborative science, philosophy & theology/worldview conversation for the 21c. electronic-information age
la pomme, l'horloge, l'ancre, le miroir
Epistemological ruminations from the postgraduates at the University of Edinburgh
Hot-shot lawyer turned hitchhiking hobo.
Possibly True. Necessarily Entertaining.
Ideas that make a difference
Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing
Blogging about philosophy, by a part-time student
Out of the flybottle, into the fire
Just because you're unemployed, it doesn't mean that you're out of work
Brett Keegan | Composition and Rhetoric
A group blog by philosophers in and from Turkey
Santi Tafarella's blog on books, culture, and politics
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Helping idiots who desperately need my assistance by calling them fucking morons since 2004