Comments for Choice & Inference http://choiceandinference.com Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:20:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ Comment on Two Reasons for Abolishing the PGR by Mayo http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/24/two-reasons-for-abolishing-the-pgr/#comment-3666 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:20:18 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2910#comment-3666 If it’s true that there are people who are afraid to say what they think about a possibly biased review source that apparently impacts some departments, then that alone is very worrisome! How did philosophy become cowardly?

]]> Comment on Two Reasons for Abolishing the PGR by Gregory Wheeler http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/24/two-reasons-for-abolishing-the-pgr/#comment-3641 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:12:02 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2910#comment-3641 It is more to do with references to earlier chapters in a story than a particular hook in a fish.

For what it is worth, I don’t have a problem with stodgy. A lot of things worth knowing are stodgy. A lot of nonsense is dazzling. It is the quantifier inflation to ‘all’ and ‘none’ that I find pernicious.

]]> Comment on Two Reasons for Abolishing the PGR by Mayo http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/24/two-reasons-for-abolishing-the-pgr/#comment-3639 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:03:27 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2910#comment-3639 I will study his Mano more carefully later, but I am a bit confused: Moving past the Nazis, Glymour wants philosophy to be more relevant to scientific problems of knowledge/inquiry, not like some formal-analytic pursuits—he and I have discussed these topics for years and years, in and outside of professional forums. So the hook up with the PGR, I’m guessing, would be that Mr. Gourmet’s Menu tends to favor stodgy, traditional, ivory-tower nouvelle cuisine? That’s the part I don’t know since I never read the Menu….

]]> Comment on Two Reasons for Abolishing the PGR by Gregory Wheeler http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/24/two-reasons-for-abolishing-the-pgr/#comment-3627 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:06:45 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2910#comment-3627 This piece by Clark stirred up things a few months ago. A few people have written to me who are sympathetic to these pieces on the PGR but have expressed a wish to remain anonymous.

]]> Comment on Two Reasons for Abolishing the PGR by Mayo http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/24/two-reasons-for-abolishing-the-pgr/#comment-3626 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:52:06 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2910#comment-3626 An anonymous reader e-mailed you to say…what? Which Glymour Manifesto Greg?

]]> Comment on Two Reasons for Abolishing the PGR by Gregory Wheeler http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/24/two-reasons-for-abolishing-the-pgr/#comment-3623 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:11:39 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2910#comment-3623 Perhaps many people share your skepticism but nevertheless worry that their neighbor, their potential hiring committees or their dean think otherwise, and therefore act accordingly. This hypothesis would explain scores of conference dinner conversations I’ve had over the years, and also a few of my own “an anonymous reader emailed me to say…”, but this may simply be a reflection of the company I keep. (Maybe here is a better place for the Elvis Costello clip.)

Since I am rearranging my thoughts anyway, return for a moment to the first comment. This flirts with the idea of pitting one group of philosophers against another, which is a way of thinking about this that I do not share, and also Glymour’s manifesto, which expresses views that I do share. Some might think this intersection refers to the empty set, but I would counter that the main points of Glymour’s piece were constructive but missed for their tone. One of those points, relevant to the posts on the PGR and which first comment mentions, is about principles for ordering things and reasoning about those orderings. Another is that perhaps now we might all agree that tone matters after all.

]]> Comment on Two Reasons for Abolishing the PGR by Mayo http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/24/two-reasons-for-abolishing-the-pgr/#comment-3622 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:57:10 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2910#comment-3622 I’m surprised to see this story continues, but then I’ve never understood people who took the “philosophical gourmet” report as more serious than its chosen name evokes. I always saw it as as Leiter’s “menu” of personal favorite entrees; and as a source of who is where, and for gossip on who may be going somewhere else.

]]> Comment on Two Reasons for Abolishing the PGR by Gregory Wheeler http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/24/two-reasons-for-abolishing-the-pgr/#comment-3615 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:15:11 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2910#comment-3615 The Wizard of Oz theme is a good one, but harder to nail down. I can only recommend that you listen to what Elvis has to say on the matter.

]]> Comment on More on the Educational Imbalance within the PGR Evaluator Pool by Gregory Wheeler http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/19/more-on-the-educational-imbalance-within-the-pgr-evaluator-pool/#comment-3614 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:52:56 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2865#comment-3614 Thanks, Jeff!

]]> Comment on More on the Educational Imbalance within the PGR Evaluator Pool by Jeff Helzner http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/19/more-on-the-educational-imbalance-within-the-pgr-evaluator-pool/#comment-3613 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:58:08 +0000 http://choiceandinference.com/?p=2865#comment-3613 Great posts, Greg. Nice to see them getting picked up by Philosophers’ Carnival. BTW, doesn’t Leiter usually link to Philosophers’ Carnival? For some reason he hasn’t linked to the current issue. Hmm?

]]>