Reform win a seat: The true Volk have spoken and we all must listen.
Greens win a seat: Early reports that Muslims may have ‘voted’ (an ancient Islamic practice designed to steal elections). How severely should the franchise be limited in response?
I find the "atheism = reactionary" crowd infuriating, or in general the insistence that leftism must involve active endorsement of spiritualistic or counter-enlightenment modes of thought. It's a place where sexy murder poet ressentiment cloaks itself in a political garb and leads to nothing good.
The EENPS 2026 call for papers & symposia is now open! 🔥🔥🔥
🗓 Submission deadline: 15 Feb 2026
Conference: 18–19 Sept 2026, Bucharest 😉
See the conference website for full details!
eenps2026.sciencesconf.org
Compelling! In cases of mere epistemic unpredictability, tackled initially with the case-worker approach, but which turn out to rather warrant the stability-theorist approach: How smooth do you think these transitions are? Might science lose something there based on initial method choice?
We are going Super Social Justice Blue Hair and Pronouns. We are calling things "gay" and "queer" as compliments and honorifics. We are proudly being buzzkills and harpies and feminine and vegan and giving a sincere fucking shit about the environment and climate and well-being of the community.
Mein Erklärvideo für ElfenbeinSturm zu privilegierter Ignoranz wurde veröffentlicht 😊Passend zu den Videobeiträgen arbeiten Johanna Müller und ich auch an einem kleinen Buch mit 10 Begriffen zur Analyse von Gender & Gesellschaft - mehr dazu bald! #publicphilosophy #feministsky #philsky
I agree with @benburgis.bsky.social's critique of the critique. I can be pretty analytic philosophy sceptical (see e.g. sootyempiric.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-...) but sometimes people just kinda flail in critiques, they basically just make stuff up about it.
benburgis.substack.com/p/if-you-wan...
Oh, good job! Which band?
"Common decency stigmatizes people that do not participate in it—removes them from voluntary association. We indeed have to live with one another, but terms and conditions apply."
me on why Ezra Klein should be ashamed / why shame is Good Actually
www.bostonreview.net/articles/how...
I'd be tempted by B if I wasn't vegan. It's where I grew up + pizza 😅 C now tho
I am advertising two PhD positions in philosophy -- one for a domestic student, one for an international student. Both positions are 1 + 3 years, meaning that the first year is an MRes and the next three years are for the PhD.
www.mq.edu.au/research/phd...
Jan-Willem Romeijn’s closing address from a typical European podium #EPSA25 #philsci
BeReal pic of the EPSA conference badges laid out over a long table. Small selfie of me and Freek Oude Maatman in the corner.
The tables are set for EPSA tomorrow. 😌 Very excited to host so many of you here in Groningen! #PhilSci
Welcome! 😁
ABSTRACT. Many epistemologists argue that disagreement with an epistemic peer should lead to conciliation by lowering confidence in the disputed belief or even suspending judgement altogether. The value of this conciliatory approach is less clear in the context of collective scientific inquiry and it may be that it slows progress or reduces efficiency. We introduce a novel agent-based model that captures key aspects of scientific disagreement by incorporating epistemic norms governing belief revision and zetetic norms guiding scientific inquiry. Our results indicate that the effects of conciliating in the face of disagreement—good or bad—depend on the zetetic norms. When scientists believe a hypothesis is likely to succeed, remaining steadfast is more effective. However, for exploratory scientists, conciliation does not negatively affect group performance. This highlights the critical role of zetetic norms in determining the rational response to disagreement in scientific practice.
Just accepted:
'The Mix Matters: Exploring the Interplay Between Epistemic and Zetetic Norms in Scientific Disagreement'
– Martin Justin, Dunja Šešelja, Christian Straßer & Borut Trpin
Abstract in alt text or read paper here (free):
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...
#philsci #philsky
(1/6) www.hup.harvard.edu/books/978067.... Self-promotion is not my thing, and yet today I’ll engage in it a bit - because The Democratic Marketplace is officially out today, at least in the US (the Dutch version will come out later this month).
Can't wait! 😌
I did the thing you are never supposed to do. I wrote a (rough draft of a) textbook: Theories of Rational Decision
It's technical, but from a philosophical perspective. It focuses on the normative theory but touches on some behavioral issues as well.
raw.githubusercontent.com/kzollman/Rat...
See you there!
The academic literature on voting systems doesn’t account for this kind of effect enough. It too often takes voter preferences as given and asks how to aggregate them. But preferences are responsive to campaigns, and campaigns adjust to voting systems.
Our Team NormAN (together with Ulrike Hahn, Rafael Fuchs, Kirsty Phillips & Leon Assaad) paper "Capturing argument in agent-based models" is out in
@cdutilhnovaes.bsky.social's Topoi special issue on the Social Epistemology of Argumentation here: link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Perhaps Rosenberg's "Non-violent communication" might fit the bill?
Ouch. I'm sorry.
I think for me it's wanting to be fast enough not to end up in this awkward spot where it's just me and the last other person, when the screen readjusts to display them prominently and my brain goes "Wait, do I have to say something to them now that it's just the two of us closing up behind us?"
Gettier's paper and that one Ramsey footnote?
Here is my #LGBTQNotGoingBack post, which includes a MASTER LIST of everyone else's posts! plus instructions for how to be added to this lists & how to call your representatives today!
on Substack: juliaserano.substack.com/p/lgbtq-peop...
or Medium: juliaserano.medium.com/lgbtq-people... #LGBTQ
Thanks for sharing this on, this is a fascinating case study in how power structures work to shape their own truths.
Many of you shared this piece saying it’s great but didn’t explain just how great. Apart from being utterly absorbing, for this philosopher of science the story is a case study of values of anti-racism driving respect for facts and improving scholarship on purely epistemic terms. A privilege to read
