Comments for Choice & Inference

Comment on Philosophy Security Advisory System by Carl

Carl — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:33:48 +0000

Wow, what a scandal, Brian! You were offended by the photo of Hendricks with a bunch of scantily clad women. Perhaps some people are offended by the ridiculous Steve Pyke photo of you. So what? Do you have any evidence that Hendricks being in the photo is in any way relevant to his ability to do his job? Your outrage over the photo makes you sound like one of the religious conservatives that you love to attack. Fortunately for Hendricks he lives in the relatively progressive land of Denmark. I suppose that the magazines should be on notice that Brian is not interested in posing for a photo like the one that Hendricks is in, although I’m guessing that they aren’t asking.

Comment on Philosophy Security Advisory System by Gregory Wheeler

Gregory Wheeler — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:35:58 +0000

Now, now. Don’t knock living without demagoguery before trying it.

But, this does pique my curiosity in your universe. Suppose a blogger had a long-term advertising deal fall through with a publisher before accusations about that publisher’s flagship journal dropped. In your universe, would that blogger have a moral duty to disclose a potential conflict of interest when reporting on that journal’s troubles?

In our universe we would answer Yes to that hypothetical question.

Comment on Philosophy Security Advisory System by Brian

Brian — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:46:58 +0000

You folks really live in an alternate universe! Anyway, I got a laugh out of this, so thanks.

Comment on Philosophy Security Advisory System by Gregory Wheeler

Gregory Wheeler — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:18:52 +0000

I’d say elevated.

Severe is doubling down on a false accusation that you know is false and getting it into the NY Times.

Comment on Philosophy Security Advisory System by Brian

Brian — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:14:21 +0000

I’d say the risk is now severe!

Comment on Philosophy Security Advisory System by Gregory Wheeler

Gregory Wheeler — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:01:07 +0000

Both.

It is important to have a system for ranking threats to faculty reputations.

Comment on Philosophy Security Advisory System by Jeff Helzner

Jeff Helzner — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:27:10 +0000

hmm, i see that you decided not to follow the DHS in their recent move to a two-level scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Terrorism_Advisory_System

is this just because you like it old school or is it because you think that there is something about the five-level scale that makes it more appropriate for warning the public about the risk of leiter attacks?

Comment on CADILLAC by Arthur Paul Pedersen

Arthur Paul Pedersen — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:01:26 +0000

Thanks, Greg!

Comment on In light of some recent discussion over at New Apps, I bring you Clark Glymour’s manifesto … by Anon K

Anon K — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:46:13 +0000

I will take a stab at this. How could one not given the obvious challenge.

I won’t say that one is the other but I will say that one ignores the other at the peril of being superfluous. I believe that is what is intended. This is a bidirectional relationship. An architect that ignores the required engineering will inevitably design a structure that is dangerous or cannot be built.

I cannot comment further on the above because I’m actually not certain as to the overall point. “Mathematics, computer science and logic are not philosophy, because engineering is not architecture.” I assume the intention is to equate mathematics with engineering and philosophy with architecture. Well, mathematics, computer science and logic aren’t engineering nor do they exhibit similarities of a kind that are also shared by philosophy and architecture. It would actually strengthen Glymour’s position if one were to equate philosophy with architecture.

Comment on In light of some recent discussion over at New Apps, I bring you Clark Glymour’s manifesto … by John

John — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:41:40 +0000

Anon A,

Can you say more? Do you think Leiter’s data are fraudulent? If so, what makes you think so? It seems far-fetched.

But the New Apps analysis you linked to is surprising. I didn’t know that the rankings could change that much by making small changes in how the specialty scores are added together. Is your point that there might be even larger differences if similar things are done to the raw data?