tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-341373002024-03-06T01:22:18.330-08:00The Sequential PhilosopherSundry postings on philosophy, science, comics, academia, culture, life, etc.Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-59719657066696164732015-01-07T12:21:00.001-08:002015-01-07T12:21:56.757-08:00I doubt anyone is trying to keep up with me here, but in case anyone finds their way to this blog, I wanted to let you know where you can actually find me these days:<br />
<ul>
<li>Personal website, blogging, fun stuff, etc.: <a href="http://thehangedman.com/">http://thehangedman.com/</a></li>
<li>Professional website: <a href="http://matthewjbrown.net/">http://matthewjbrown.net/</a></li>
<li>Occasional posts about Whiskey: <a href="http://whiskeyphilosopher.com/">http://whiskeyphilosopher.com/</a></li>
</ul>
Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-45088163011653902132010-05-04T09:39:00.000-07:002010-05-04T10:18:59.347-07:00philosophy of technology postmortemLast week was the last week of teaching for Spring semester. I asked the students in my Philosophy of Technology course <a href="http://laser.fontmonkey.com/foe/index.php?entry=entry070504-014827">P.D.'s end of term questions</a>:<br /><br />What authors from the course would you strongly recommending keeping? Which are particularly insightful and valuable to read now?<br /><br />Which authors would you recommend leaving out next time? Which seem like historical relics with nothing insightful to offer?<br /><br />(Here's <a href="http://www.utdallas.edu/%7Emattbrown/Teaching_files/phil-tech-syllabus.pdf">my syllabus</a> for comparison.)<br /><br />Here are the highlights:<blockquote><pre> yay boo<br />Heidegger 12 2<br />Kurzweil 12 6<br />Dewey 11 1<br />Mitcham 11 1<br />Marcuse 9 1<br />D. Haraway 7 2<br />Latour 6 3<br />A. Borgmann 6 0<br />W. Berry 6 7<br />H. Dreyfus 1 5<br /><br />L. Winner 5 2<br />Habermas 4 1<br />Ellul 2 3<br />Feenberg 2 5<br />Ortega 1 4<br /><br />D. Browning 4 3<br />McDermott 3 4<br />Hickman 1 5</pre></blockquote>A few interesting things show up, here. I'm rather impressed by the allegiance to Heidegger, given how much we all struggled with it. And the Dreyfus essay we read on Heidegger, which I thought did a lot to help make Heidegger clear, was pretty much panned! (In the same vein, Dewey did well, but Hickman didn't.)<br /><br />The popularity of Kurzweil is no surprise, as it was a very accessible and exciting book; nor is the fact that a number of students disliked it. I'm really surprised by the number of people who like Carl Mitcham's book. I thought it was a terrible mess myself, full of too-brief summaries of too many figures in a loose organization. Perhaps it is just a reflection of how important it is to have a general secondary source book in a course like this. My inclination is to try to find a better one.<br /><br />Bruno Latour and Donna Haraway both did remarkably well, considering, especially since I spent very little time on Haraway.<br /><br />Of the readings that got 12+ responses, Wendell Berry's short piece, "Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer" was clearly the most controversial. This may be a result of the fact that few students agreed with Berry, but we had a pretty good discussion. <br /><br />I put that second group aside to show how the "major" philosophers of technology tended to get a fairly lukewarm response. Heidegger, Dewey, Mitcham, Marcuse, and Borgmann are all canonical figures (such as they are) that did fairly well. Winner did okay, and Habermas, Ellul, Feenberg, and Ortega y Gasset didn't do so hot. Likewise, the third group, which are the Americanists (besides Dewey), didn't do so hot.<br /><br />I haven't talked much to P.D. about how he's used the results of these little questionnaires, but I'm sort of more inclined to<span style="font-style: italic;"> keep</span> the controversial or even negatively-ranked authors if they got a very high response rate – it means they had an impact – while junking those that got very low responses, suggesting that students weren't made to care one way or the other.<br /><br />Also, one student wrote in that next time I should add McLuhan and Derrida to the list.Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-21540240366980682752010-05-02T18:10:00.000-07:002010-05-02T19:03:22.208-07:00Opportunity LostI received the following unfortunate announcement in my inbox today:<br /><blockquote>Following nearly fifty years of self-publication, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Southern Journal</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> of Philosophy</span> now appears under the imprint of its new publisher, Wiley-Blackwell. Through increased exposure and assorted logistical and cosmetic updates, the partnership with Wiley-Blackwell promises to broaden the appeal and deepen the impact of the work published in the SJP.</blockquote>This seems like a move in precisely the wrong direction! I don't have anything personal or professional invested in <span style="font-style: italic;">SJP</span> (I've read a couple of good articles originally printed there, I think), but going from self-publication to a major publishing house is terrible news (whatever one things of Wiley-Blackwell compared to other such publishers). This is a time when the field <span style="font-style: italic;">really needs</span> high-quality, open access journals. It is a time when whole electronic systems for manuscript submission and review can be got cheaply, if not free via open source software. It is a time when online publication is free and easy, and print-on-demand publishing can be had at a reasonable price if a paper copy of the journal is a must. And, as ever, all of the substantive intellectual labor of review and editing is done more or less <span style="font-style: italic;">pro bono</span> by the editorial staff and volunteer referees, and perhaps a couple of meagerly-rewarded graduate students.<br /><br />So it's really unfortunate in this situation that <span style="font-style: italic;">SJP</span> is going in the direction of <span style="font-style: italic;">more traditional</span> publishing. What a lost opportunity.Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-57151210659552583662009-11-08T14:09:00.000-08:002009-11-08T14:19:02.528-08:00Dewey's child-raising practices<blockquote>One "liberated" practice that would surely have shocked their Ann Arbor neighbors, had they known of it, was alluded to much later in a letter by Dewey to W.E. Hocking. He told the somewhat genteel philosopher that "during the critical years of the sex-development of their children, Mrs. Dewey and he would go around the house in the nude." (Joseph Ratner believed that this was the reason the children talked about sex so freely.)</blockquote><div style="text-align:right;">Jay Martin, <em>The Education of John Dewey</em>, 132-3.</div>Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-34902875456815576972009-11-08T14:00:00.000-08:002009-11-08T14:21:28.184-08:00For Sabrina<blockquote>I am thinking of you, and my darling I do want you so this evening.... Oh, sweetheart, you are the centre of everything, so that my being would be torn by its attraction to its centre, were you not the circumference of everything also. My own self, I love you---and it is hard to be without one's self. My own life, I love you---and it is hard to live without one's life. But darling you <em>are</em> my self and my life and so I can be and live.... Darling, how did you ever manage to do away with and put out of sight so thoroughly my old doing & my old thinking, and fill my self so full of you? [You] ... found a home for me, who had been homeless before, because I was always looking for you.</blockquote><div style="text-align: right;">-- John Dewey to Alice Chipman, Christmas 1885, quoted in Jay Martin, <em>The Education of John Dewey</em>, pp. 91-2.</div><blockquote>Sweetheart, I have found that I am only an abstractly subjective standpoint without you.</blockquote><div style="text-align: right;">-- John Dewey to Alice Chipman, Christmas 1885 (?), quoted in Martin p. 103</div>Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-59421626184662346862009-10-24T05:30:00.000-07:002009-10-24T05:53:32.777-07:00Dewey Birthday Conference, Day II, part 1This is my second post about the <a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/research/conferences/">Dewey sesquicentennial conference</a>. Read <a href="http://sequentialphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/10/dewey-birthday-conference-day-i.html">day 1 here</a>.<br /><br />Yesterday began with Ruth Anna Putnam on "Dewey's Faith," continuing the discussion from last night by Larry Hickman. Overall, the conversation convinced me that I need to read and take more seriously Dewey's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300000693?ie=UTF8&tag=thehangemanat-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0300000693">A Common Faith</a>. <br /><br />Putnam started with a general description of Dewey's naturalism:<br /><ol><li>No appeal to supernatural entities could play a role in solving philosophical problem.</li><li>Belief in a supernatural being had pernicious effects on one's ability to deal with personal and social problems. </li></ol><br />Then she argued that Dewey, following James, thought that experiences appropriately called "religious" are found in all communities. Such experience is valuable, and would be moreso if free from traditional religion & the supernaturalism, which simply hinder what is valuable in genuine religious experience and religious practice.<br /><br />What is valuable about the religious experience? Not its cause or quality, but its effects. It leads to positive readjustment in one's attitude to life. Such an adjustment is very important. One sees the things one values forming a unified whole, in terms of a unified and unifying ideal. Such ideals, Dewey was always keen to argue, have important effects in concrete life, by which we judge them.<br /><br />Examples of the "religious life," in Dewey's sense, can be found in art, science, and good citizenship. That's because all of these ways of life are guided by ideal ends. Dewey wrote <span style="font-style:italic;">A Common Faith</span> to make explicit the implicit "religious" values (ideal ends) in science and our common life, especially democracy. We seek truth, beauty, justice, a common good. We have faith in the world's amenability to scientific inquiry; we have faith in the power of democracy. We <span style="font-style:italic;">learn</span> these faiths, not blindly, but slowly, given their value as organizing principles in out lives.<br /><br />Next up, I'll talk about the panel sessions...Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-25189453030553978362009-10-22T20:19:00.000-07:002009-10-22T20:20:17.439-07:00Dewey Birthday Conference, Day IToday was the first day of the <a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/research/conferences/">Dewey Sesquicentennial Conference</a>. You can see my play-by-play thoughts <a href="http://twitter.com/thehangedman">on my Twitter account</a>, but I thought I'd do a quick wrap-up of my thoughts before hitting the bed. Of course, I'm paraphrasing what I took them to be saying, and I may have gotten it quite wrong. This is how it sounded to me and what I thought.<br /><br />Paul Kurtz gave the first lecture, "Looking Ahead: What are the Prospects for Dewey’s Philosophy in the Future?" This was full of personal anecdotes about Dewey (Kurtz met Dewey when Kurtz was a grad student at Columbia), some quite general comments about Dewey's philosophy, and some reflections on how our current situation, especially the difference in our scientific knowledge after the last 50 years or so, changes the way that we think about Dewey's philosophy. <br /><br />What Kurtz said was that we know much more about just how contingent the evolution of the human species has been, and now that we have a less romantic account of it than even the early Darwinians, we can see just how uncertain human prospects are. What will come hinges on unpredictable contingencies. Dewey's philosophy gives us a way of understanding ourselves and the world that gives full credence to this, while nevertheless providing some sense of hope. <br /><br />I would add that most philosophers, who fail to recognize the degree of precariousness and uncertainty in nature, and who give a relatively rosy picture of the likelihood of the growth of knowledge and justice, are deluding themselves.<br /><br />What Kurtz thinks we need to add to Dewey is a kind of "planetary ethos," which seems like it combines universal empathy for all human beings, and something like a Leopoldian "land ethic," a sense of our responsibility to the natural world. <br /><br />Larry Hickman then gave a talk on "John Dewey's Spiritual Values." I've heard Hickman speak before and I always consider it a pleasure. At the beginning, he mentioned several projects ongoing at the Center for Dewey Studies. Most exciting, from my perspective, is that they're going to be publishing a bunch of Dewey's lecture notes. Apparently, Dewey's students hired professional stenographers, and the Center has that stuff.<br /><br />According to Hickman, Dewey was opposed militant atheism and militant supernaturalism. If we understand "atheism" to mean simply, not a theist, then Dewey admits that he is an atheist. But, Dewey said, the popular meaning of atheism is denial of all ideal values, and I'm not an atheist in that sense. Dewey's "spirituality" is thus a kind of "moral idealism," an insistence on the reality of moral ideals. <br /><br />Now, Dewey was aware that "spiritual" is a problematic term, with a long history of abuse. The problem is that there has been an unwarranted separation of spiritual from material. So spiritual/ideal values are seen as separate from material world. Dewey thinks there is something to our use of "spirituality" that is important, that militant atheism doesn't capture. <br /><br />According to Hickman, Dewey's conception of spiritual values are just as relevant today, situated as we are in the cultural battleground between religious fundamentalists and the New Atheists. <br /><br />There was some really interesting discussion after this, though I must admit it was getting a bit late in the day for me to process it very well. I'll just reproduce the notes I have on three key points, paraphrasing what I took them to be saying:<br /><br />Paul Kurtz: There's a crisis in secular humanism. We need a "natural reverence" that the New Atheists cannot capture.<br /><br />Larry Hickman: There's "spirituality" in the sense of moral ideals, and in the sense of wonder. Dewey wanted to capture both. And "spiritual" can act as an important talisman for coalition building with religious humanists.<br /><br />Philip Kitcher: Values aren't beliefs; commitments, promises, hopes, emotions are the right cognitive attitudes. The problem with the New Atheism is they identify religion w/ a set of beliefs. But it's also community structure, values, hopes, etc. James and Dewey saw this clearly. This is one reason that A Common Faith is so valuable.<br /><br />Looking forward to a full day tomorrow!Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-4474079673072118242009-10-21T19:34:00.000-07:002009-10-21T19:41:18.250-07:00John Dewey's 150th Birthday Celebration (10/22-24)This weekend, I'm going to be at <a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/research/conferences/">John Dewey's 150th Birthday Celebration: An International Conference on Dewey's Impact on America and the World</a>. I'm going to be presenting a paper, <a href="http://utdallas.academia.edu/MatthewBrown/Papers/114176/Dewey-on-Science">"Dewey on Science"</a>, which lays out some of the key features of Dewey's philosophy of science, with some special reference to issues of concern for contemporary debates about science. Largely, the focus will be on giving a systematic explanation of the core of Dewey's philosophy of science, though of course in a 20 minute conference paper, some important stuff will be left out.<br /><br />I'll be blogging about the conference live, here and <a href="http://twitter.com/thehangedman">on twitter</a>, as much as possible.Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-79223135679411528532009-10-12T22:51:00.000-07:002013-12-15T15:53:09.774-08:00How-To Automate UT-Dallas Proxy Server<b>UPDATE: </b>This does not work in Chrome, my current browser of choice. There is a great plugin, though, called <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/library-ezproxy-by-cx/ibhkjdfibcpgkebpmjdokahdidafnlfg">Library EZProxy</a> that is even easier. As far as I know, the below is still one of the easiest methods for Firefox.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, among many of the things that is difficult to navigate about the library at the University of Texas at Dallas is the library proxy. They provide no way of configuring a proxy for your browser or any kind of PAC script, nor is there any all-purpose link on their website, or even a VPN, so far as I can determine. You have to go through the library website to get the link to the journal. As a result, if, say, someone links to a journal on their webpage, or a friend links to a Chronicle article on facebook, it's basically not worth your time to actually try and get there through the obvious channels. Hacking around it even proved fairly difficult, due to the fact that UTD uses a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server#Suffix_proxy">suffix proxy</a> system. Here's how I finally figured out my way around the problem for Firefox.<br />
<br />
First, I looked at some links from the library website to outside journals and databases. I noticed that they tend to look like this:<br />
<br />
<code>http://chronicle.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/article/Wanted-Female-Philosophers/48729/<br />http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.utdallas.edu</code><br />
<br />
Noting the similarity, I decided to navigated on over to <a href="http://libproxy.utdallas.edu/">http://libproxy.utdallas.edu .</a> This gives a big old list of electronic journals and databases, with several links that are out of date. But I noticed a common pattern here. All the links were to:<br />
<br />
<code>http://libproxy.utdallas.edu/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/<br />http://libproxy.utdallas.edu/login?url=</code><code>http://www.ipap.jp/inde</code><code>x_journals.html</code><br />
<br />
This was the key to my problem. I finally found <a href="http://kb.mozillazine.org/Using_keyword_searches">this MozillaZine article on creating keyword searches</a>.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR3bABWBcvO8oSyKVGNPA_TKv8qt8Jjb-y6lnefo-fgwI1OD855yTWP2v7NUH-8aV5fwZ0H1A63n3dtsal-9McwgRjav-aWI4cSQhFWEEbkJ2HLWj4xo58TqmV2ea4Tj4M4_j0ZA/s1600-h/UTD+Proxy.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5391962493990201650" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR3bABWBcvO8oSyKVGNPA_TKv8qt8Jjb-y6lnefo-fgwI1OD855yTWP2v7NUH-8aV5fwZ0H1A63n3dtsal-9McwgRjav-aWI4cSQhFWEEbkJ2HLWj4xo58TqmV2ea4Tj4M4_j0ZA/s400/UTD+Proxy.gif" style="cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 127px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; width: 400px;" /></a><br />
What you need to do is go to Bookmarks->Organize Bookmarks. Add a bookmark with the location as<br />
<br />
<code>http://libproxy.utdallas.edu/login?url=%S</code> [the capital S is crucial]<br />
<br />
And add the keyword as "utd" (or whatever you like). Then, when you have a webpage that you need the library proxy for, click in front of the URL and add "utd " in front, like so:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuM9drNq51nXb-e7iWnwRb9N07YCnA9wFM_AbOlhUJ9Y3UrXYGNFzYCEkpGOR6L6FL-yDu9c-Qa-zBVM2z9KiJTew0FxOdcrM-GYg2PMrrQMtj6TFTnp87-BhomrELBxDkFQRW-A/s1600-h/UTD-proxy2.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5391964284742776754" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuM9drNq51nXb-e7iWnwRb9N07YCnA9wFM_AbOlhUJ9Y3UrXYGNFzYCEkpGOR6L6FL-yDu9c-Qa-zBVM2z9KiJTew0FxOdcrM-GYg2PMrrQMtj6TFTnp87-BhomrELBxDkFQRW-A/s400/UTD-proxy2.gif" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 25px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 400px;" /></a>Then hit return, and you'll be taken to the login for the UTD library proxy, and then you'll be taken to:<br />
<br />
<code>http://chronicle.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/article/Wanted-Female-Philosophers/48729/</code><br />
<br />
Ta-da! Full access, much less hassle.<br />
<br />
Anyone else found an easier way?Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-90797055402460386612009-10-07T22:41:00.001-07:002009-10-07T23:37:50.275-07:00Recent BloggingJust checking in to let you know what I've been blogging about lately.<br /><ul><li><a href="http://sequentialphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/10/letter-to-my-senators.html">Letter to My Senators</a> (The Sequential Philosopher) – Please don't cut off NSF funding for political science.</li><li><a href="http://itisonlyatheory.blogspot.com/2009/09/exciting-trends-in-general-philosophy.html">Exciting Trends in Philosophy of Science</a> (It's Only a Theory) – The four most exciting areas in general philosophy of science, IMHO.</li><li><a href="http://itisonlyatheory.blogspot.com/2009/10/varieties-of-evidence.html">The Varieties of Evidence</a> (It's Only a Theory) – A very general description of the complex,* process-functionalist theory of evidence that I'm working on.</li><li><a href="http://scienceandvalues.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/william-moulton-marston-educational-and-professional-background/">Science, Values, and Popular Culture in the Psychology of William Moulton Marston</a><span> (Science, Values, and Democracy) – A description of my new research project.</span></li><li><a href="http://scienceandvalues.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/william-moulton-marston-educational-and-professional-background/">William Moulton Marston: Educational and Professional Background</a> (Science, Values, and Democracy)</li><li><a href="http://scienceandvalues.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/pragmatism-positivism-science-and-values-in-the-1930s/">Pragmatism, Positivism, Science, and Values in the 1930’s</a> (Science, Values, and Democracy)</li><li>Brief discussions on Science, Values and Democracy on Philip Kitcher's <span style="font-style: italic;">Science, Truth, and Democracy</span> <a href="http://scienceandvalues.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/kitchers-science-truth-and-democracy/">Part I </a>and <a href="http://scienceandvalues.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/science-truth-and-democracy-part-ii/">II</a> and on <span style="font-style: italic;">The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice</span> <a href="http://scienceandvalues.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/values-within-core-areas-of-science/">Part I</a>: <a href="http://scienceandvalues.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/the-play-of-values-within-core-science-part-ii/">The Play of Values within the Core Areas of Scientific Research</a>.<br /></li></ul>* By "complex," I don't mean to tout the complexity of my theory. Rather, I mean that there is a complex profile of functions that evidence is involved in. But, multi-process-functionalist and its cognates are uggers.Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-11018878058303254612009-10-07T15:39:00.000-07:002009-10-07T15:53:35.299-07:00Letter to my SenatorsDear Senator,<br /><br /><a href="http://coburn.senate.gov/public/">Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)</a> has introduced <a href="http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=82180b1f-a03e-4600-a2e5-846640c2c880">amendment 2631</a> to H.R. 2847 with the aim of prohibiting the National Science Foundation from funding research in political science. Senator Coburn's amendment is not based on an understanding of the nature of scientific research nor a concern for funding scientific projects that, as he says, "expand our knowledge of true science and yield breakthroughs and discoveries that can improve the human condition." Rather, Coburn is attempting to interfere in the funding of science purely on the basis of political motivations and base anti-intellectualism. I strongly urge you to oppose this amendment.<br /><br />I am an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, and my main area of teaching and research is in the philosophy of science and technology, which addresses, among other thing, the nature of scientific inquiry. While the differences between the natural and social sciences is a complex and subtle academic issue, there is absolutely no basis for the wholesale discrimination against political science and the social sciences generally that Coburn's amendment implies. Political science no less than physics or chemistry aims at knowledge and discoveries that can improve the human condition. If it is relatively less developed than some of the natural sciences, that is all the more reason to fund its improvement, especially in a day and age in which social and political problems are as or more pressing than problems dealing exclusively with the mechanisms of the natural world.<br /><br />For the sake of the growth and integrity of science, I urge you to vote against such an amendment.<br /><br />Sincerely yours,<br />Matthew J. Brown, Ph.D.Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-89197435743976262832009-09-17T13:12:00.001-07:002009-09-17T13:13:20.368-07:00Call to Action! Expanding Dragon*Con AcademicsDragon*Con Academics was GREAT this year. We did 8 panels with high attendance, great presentations, and rousing discussions. Now's the time to push for an expansion of academic programming at Dragon*Con! The way to do this is to let the Dragon*Con office know how much support there is for academic programming and an academic conference at the convention. I'm aiming for the stars, hoping to get a full academic track at the convention.<br /><br />To see the panels we've done in the last two years, you can visit these links:<br /><br /><a href="http://thehangedman.com/dragoncon">http://thehangedman.com/dragoncon</a><br /><br /><a href="http://thehangedman.com/dragoncon/dc2008.html">http://thehangedman.com/dragoncon/dc2008.html</a><br /><br />What I'm asking from you is to contact the office and let them know how you feel. There are three ways to do this. You can email them at dragoncon@dragoncon.org. You can fill out the webform at:<br /><br />http://dragoncon.org/dc_contact.php<br /><br />Or you can call the office at 770-909-0115 (M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST).<br /><br />Below I've provided the beginning of a message. You can edit it, mix and match your reasons, and (this is crucial!) provide some detail about your own experience.<br /><br />Thanks for your support! Tell your friends!<br /><br />Best, Matt<br /><br />-8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<--<br /><br />Subject: Track Request: Academics<br /><br />Dear Dragon*Con Office,<br /><br />I'm writing to request the creation of an academic track at Dragon*Con. I [[attended / participated in / wish I could have been at]] the academic conference organized by Matt Brown at Dragon*Con in [[2008 / 2009]], and I am very much in support of expanding it. The attendance has been very high, the presentations have been interesting and informative, and have lead to lively discussions.<br /><br />While the ordinary, informal fan discussions at Dragon*Con can be fun and informative, these panels really bring something extra to my Dragon*Con in terms of the amount of work that has gone into the panel, and the type of intellectually stimulating discussion that results.<br /><br />It would really help to have the academic panels be more officially organized, so they would be easier to find and in a more consistent space as well.<br /><br />It seems like making an academic track would allow a wider variety of academic presentations. Right now, it seems to be limited by what tracks have space open.<br /><br />We're not only ready for a higher level of intellectual discussion at Dragon*Con. We need it!<br /><br />I've also heard that Matt Brown is willing to continue to organize academic presentations at Dragon*Con. [[I'd also be willing to help out by presenting / volunteering at the Con / helping with organization / attending the panels.]]<br /><br />Thank you for your time!<br /><br />[[Your signature here]]Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-88247601840277305842009-08-27T11:53:00.000-07:002009-08-27T11:56:59.374-07:00Class BlogFor those who happen to follow this blog despite the lack of postings, I suspect that much of my blogging energy this semester is going to be directed at the blog I set up for my grad seminar on "Science, Values, and Democracy":<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceandvalues.wordpress.com/">http://scienceandvalues.wordpress.com/</a><br /><br />Hopefully some of you will be interested in the discussions.Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-91593752715795314302009-05-20T16:21:00.001-07:002009-05-20T16:22:11.269-07:00Dragon*Con 2nd Annual Comics & Popular Arts ConferenceCall for Participation<br /><br />Institute for Comics Studies<br />Comic Book Convention Conference Series<br /><br />DRAGON*CON 2nd ANNUAL COMICS & POPULAR ARTS CONFERENCE<br /><br />Atlanta, Georgia September 4-7, 2009<br /><br />The Institute for Comic Studies and Dragon*Con present their second annual academic conference for the studies of comics and the popular arts to take place at Dragon*Con, the largest multi-media, popular culture convention focusing on science fiction and fantasy, gaming, comics, literature, art, music, and film in the US. For more info on Dragon*Con, visit http://dragoncon.org/<br /><br />Please submit a proposal for a 15/20-minute presentation that engages in substantial scholarly examinations of comic books, manga, graphic novels, anime, sf, fantasy, and popular culture. A broad range of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives is being sought, including literary and art criticism, philosophy, linguistics, history, and communication. Proposals may range from discussions of the nature of the comics medium, analyses of particular works and authors, discussions of the visual language of comics, comics pedagogy, cross-cultural and cross-medium comparisons, and more. This year, we're especially interested in proposals dealing with anime/manga, sf/fantasy literature, and Star Trek, though presentations on any of the above topics will be considered.<br /><br />This conference of Dragon*Con represents the Institute for Comics Studies' mission to promote the study, understanding, and cultural legitimacy of comics and to support the discussion and dissemination of this study and understanding via public venues.<br /><br />100 to 200 word proposals due: July 1, 2009<br /><br />STAR TREK PROPOSALS due JUNE 1, 2009!<br /><br />Please submit your proposal at the following address: <br />http://www.hsu.edu/form.aspx?ekfrm=43888<br /><br />Prospective participants are encouraged to submit a guest application in advance at the following address: http://dragoncon.org/dc_guest_app.php<br /><br />Matt Brown<br />Dragon*Con Academics Chair<br />thehangedman@gmail.com<br />www.instituteforcomicsstudies.orgMatthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-64925884409361684082009-03-30T22:04:00.000-07:002009-03-30T22:44:30.579-07:00web presenceI need to figure out what to do with my web presence. I'm not necessarily opposed to having a bunch of different faces updated a bunch of different ways, but I think mediocre user interfaces and ho-hum appearances are cramping my style and decreasing the frequency of updates significantly. So far I've got:<br /><br /><ul><br /><li>Homepage: <a href="http://thehangedman.com">thehangedman.com</a> - made with iWeb, which produces okay-looking output but is no fun to use, and loses points for being WYSIWYG. Also, iWeb's directory and file structure is a dog's breakfast.</li><br /><li>Blog 1: <a href="http://sequentialphilosopher.blogspot.com/">The Sequential Philosopher</a> - That's this. Handles line breaks fairly poorly, such that I can't compose entries in Markdown without either (A) ending up with tons of extra line-breaks in the posts or (B) deleting all the line-breaks in all prior posts. Pages look okay, but configuring appearance is a bear.</li><br /><li>Blog 2: <a href="http://firmament.livejournal.com">Livejournal</a> - Ugh. Acceptable for keeping track of livejournal friends, posting semi-private entries and junk I don't want to post on my more "serious" blog.</li><br /><li><a href="http://twitter.com/thehangedman">Twitter</a> - Pro: Super easy to update. Brevity is the soul of wit. Con: few users of Twitter (though twitter facebook app helps).</li><br /><li><a href="http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Brown/3325254">Facebook</a> - Insert old man grumblings about interface updates and applications. I actually kind of like facebook for lots of things, except that it isn't good for professional stuff. Something about navigating facebook makes me unlikely to update it if I haven't recently been updating it a lot.</li><br /><li><a href="http://ucsd.academia.edu/MatthewBrown">Academia.edu</a> - Pretty cool academic social networking site. Tuned for making professional-looking pages and posting papers and such. </li><br /><li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/thehangedman/">Flickr</a> - Last updated July 2008. (Probably as much for my lack of picture-taking as anything.) Irritating restrictions on service if you're not willing to pay.</li><br /></ul><br /><br />Is that it? I hope so. <br /><br />Anyhow. I'm not afraid of PHP, CSS, or hand-coding HTML, and in fact I far prefer it to using programs like Frontpage and Dreamweaver, and I kind prefer it to using iWeb. Except, I'm not so confident in my ability to make pages that don't look like crap, and I'm not sure I've ever had one that didn't. Besides, who has time to design webpages? Also, I've been burned by things like Movable Type and Wordpress in the past, and I'm overall not sure that having big hulking blog software on my own server makes any sense. Here's what I really want, in order of importance.<br /><br /><ol><br /><li>An attractive personal home page containing easily accessible information like publications, course info, CV, and such which is also easy to update and not beholden to finicky and irritating WYSIWYG editors.</li><br /><li>A blog that is easy to update, preferably in Markdown, easy to read.</li><br /><li>Somewhere to post pictures that is easy to use and will let me access all my pictures.</li><br /><li>Reasonable integration of all these things (which a possible exception of my Facebook-Livejournal un-professional space).</li><br /></ol><br /><br />(1) is really my major concern right now. Help?Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-3947583446067727162009-03-24T13:05:00.003-07:002009-03-24T13:06:53.206-07:00dissertation: almost doneJust posted <a href="http://thehangedman.com/dissertation.pdf">a draft of my dissertation</a> on my website. I'm taking a big step, I think, publishing it under a creative commons license. But it's important and I'm sticking with that. <br /><br />Best,<br />MattMatthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-32694042281989407982009-03-10T20:08:00.000-07:002009-03-12T16:34:55.479-07:00book review - anti-individualism<strong>Good news from analytic philosophy!</strong> A review of<br /><br /><strong>Anti-Individualism: Mind and Language, Knowledge and Justification</strong> by Sanford C. Goldberg, Cambridge University Press, 2007, 280pp., $90.00 (hbk).<br /><br />Reviewed by<br />Matthew J. Brown<br /><br />To most readers of <em>Mind, Culture, and Activity,</em> the thesis of Sanford Goldberg's <em>Anti-Individualism</em> will seem familiar and uncontroversial. He defends the view that the content of language and the mind, the nature of knowledge and the justification of belief depend not merely upon the properties of an isolated, individual speaker, thinker, or knower, but these things also essentially depend on the physical and social environment or context in which they are embedded. Goldberg's style of presentation and method of argument, on the other hand, will seem highly unfamiliar, abstruse, and daunting to most readers of this journal. On the other hand, from the point of view of the intended audience of the book, analytic philosophers, the thesis will seem somewhat radical and extreme (though it is, I think, becoming an increasingly common position), but the style and method of presentation will seem quite common and familiar.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fn1" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref1" name="fnref1"><sup>1</sup></a> In mainstream experimental psychology and cognitive science, I suspect that both the claims and the methods of the book would seem quite radical and implausible.<br /><br /><em>Anti-Individualism</em> does not proceed primarily through examination of experimental data nor detailed individual case studies.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fn2" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref2" name="fnref2"><sup>2</sup></a> The vast majority of the citations are to work in anglophone philosophy from the last thirty years. The main arguments in the book proceed by the elaboration of complex thought experiments, mostly about the nature of testimony, i.e., the communication of knowledge through language, and marshalling the intuitive judgments "we" make about such cases. Considering the following example of the type of argument Goldberg relies on:<br /><blockquote>Imagine a distant planet, which I will refer to as "Twin Earth," which is exactly like our own Earth in all but one respect: on Twin Earth, the liquid English speakers refer to as "water" is not <em>H2O</em>, but a liquid with a complicated chemical formula that we will conveniently abbreviate <em>XYZ</em>. At large scales, at standard temperature and pressure, <em>XYZ</em> is qualitatively identical to <em>H2O</em>, such that travelers on a spaceship from Earth would originally assume that "water" has the same meaning on Twin Earth as it does back home. Only consulting with Twin-Earthling chemists or doing complex laboratory experiments would convince them that "water" means <em>XYZ</em> on Twin Earth. Nevertheless, prior to the advent of chemistry, "water" still means <em>H2O</em> on Earth and <em>XYZ</em> on Twin Earth (because these are the substances that the word refers to).<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fn3" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref3" name="fnref3"><sup>3</sup></a><br /></blockquote>Goldberg vastly extends this line of argumentation, covering a wide variety of situations of thought, language use, and the communication of beliefs, with complex tales of the difference between speakers of English and Twin English, reliable witnesses amongst roomfuls of liars, and so on. This type of argument is much more controversial amongst philosophers than it was even a decade ago, with challenges from "experimental philosophers" who have put such claims about "intuitions" to empirical test (with surprising though likewise controversial results),<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fn4" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref4" name="fnref4"><sup>4 </sup></a>neurophilosophers who suggest we should begin not with naive intuitions but the results of neuroscience and cognitive science,<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fn5" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref5" name="fnref5"><sup>5</sup></a> philosophers who draw on empirical research more generally,<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fn6" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref6" name="fnref6"><sup>6</sup></a> and pragmatists who argue that all intuitions are historically conditioned, fallible, and revisable.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fn7" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref7" name="fnref7"><sup>7</sup></a> Nevertheless, this is still a common and often-defended method of philosophical theorizing.<br /><br />One interesting and important departure is the reliance in the final chapter (Chapter 8) on the literature in developmental psychology on the role of testimony in the acquisition of beliefs by children. Even here, Goldberg does not depend on the details of the processes of learning and development. What Goldberg does appeal to is empirical data that suggests that very young children, those Goldberg calls "cognitively immature," do little to monitor the credibility of testimony; they are quick to trust what others say, especially adults. Whatever the exact texture of the growth of critical or skeptical capacities, there is a clear difference between three-year-olds and four-year-olds (p. 203), and a variety of empirical studies that point in this direction. Goldberg argues that what guarantees the successful transmission of knowledge in these cases (which is potentially threatened by uncritical acceptance) is that the reliability of testimony is monitored <em>for</em> the child <em>by others</em> (p. 200) and further, that this is a general phenomenon displayed most clearly in the case of children because they are not <em>also</em> extensively<br />monitoring credibility themselves. Thus, the acquisition of knowledge via testimony is <em>actively</em> anti-individualist, since it depends not only on social (linguistic and epistemic) norms and an individual's ability to discriminate on the basis of those norms, but also on social processes of monitoring and checking the testimony of others to others. This argument is significant for those interested in learning and development <em>not</em> because it sheds particular light on the psychological<br />processes at work (it doesn't), but because it makes clear that there is a <em>normative</em> social structure at work in such processes. In teaching/learning we care not only about the transmission of <em>beliefs</em>, but about the reliable transmission of <em>accurate</em> beliefs <em>for the right<br />reasons</em>.<br /><br />Whatever the judgment of philosophers of mind, language, and epistemology about this book, the majority of the readers of this journal would likely find Goldberg's book a difficult read with little ultimate pay-off due to mere differences in interests.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fn8" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref8" name="fnref8"><sup>8</sup></a> Those tempted to give the book a go are encouraged to read the introduction and skip straight to the final chapter before deciding what other parts of the book to tackle. Those not so tempted are encouraged to take comfort from the fact that scholars in very different disciplines, using radically different methods and beginning from almost opposed principles and presuppositions, can come to very complementary conclusions.<br /><br /><strong>References</strong><br /><br />Adler, J. (2009) "<a href="http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=15087">Review: Sanford C. Goldberg, <em>Anti-Individualism: Mind and Language, Knowledge and Justification</em></a>," <em>Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews</em><br /><br />Churchland, P.M. (1979). <em>Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind.</em> Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.<br /><br />Churchland, P. S. (1986) <em>Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind/brain.</em> MIT Press.<br /><br />Churchland, P.S. (1994) "Can Neurobiology Teach Us Anything about Consciousness?" <em>Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association,</em> Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 23-40.<br /><br />Doris, J.M. and Stich, S. (2005) "As a Matter of Fact: Empirical Perspectives on Ethics," in F. Jackson and M. Smith, eds., <em>The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Analytic Philosophy,</em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 114-152<br /><br />Margolis, J. (2002). <em>Reinventing Pragmatism: American Philosophy at the End of the Twentieth Century.</em> Ithaca: Cornell University Press.<br /><br />Putnam, H. (1975) "The Meaning of 'Meaning'." In K. Gunderson (ed.), <em>Language, Mind, and Knowledge</em> (Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota Press).<br /><br />Rorty, R. (1979) <em>Philosophy and the mirror of nature. </em>Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.<br /><br />Rorty, R. (1982). <em>Consequences of pragmatism (Essays 1972-1980).</em> Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.<br /><br />Weinberg, J., Nichols, S. and Stich, S. (2001) "Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions." <em>Philosophical Topics</em>, 29, 429-460.<br /><div class="footnotes"><br /><hr /><br /><ol><li id="fn1"><span style="font-size:85%;">Those familiar with, interested in, or patient enough to<br />struggle through dense work in analytic philosophy of mind,<br />language, and epistemology might consult Jonathan Adler's review<br />(Adler 2009). <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fnref1" class="footnoteBackLink" title="Jump back to footnote 1">↩</a><br /></span></li><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><li id="fn2"><span style="font-size:85%;">Though there are occasional footnotes to work in experimental<br />psychology consonant with the claims of the book, they are not the<br />crux of the arguments, with some exception in Chapter 8. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fnref2" class="footnoteBackLink" title="Jump back to footnote 2">↩</a><br /></span></li><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><li id="fn3"><span style="font-size:85%;">This example is a summary of one originally due to Hilary Putnam<br />(1975). I pick Putnam's example because it is famous in the field,<br />and relatively simply statable as compared to Goldberg's examples.<br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fnref3" class="footnoteBackLink" title="Jump back to footnote 3">↩</a><br /></span></li><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><li id="fn4"><span style="font-size:85%;">See Weinberg, Nichols, and Stich (2001). <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fnref4" class="footnoteBackLink" title="Jump back to footnote 4">↩</a><br /></span></li><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><li id="fn5"><span style="font-size:85%;">See Paul Churchland (1979); Patricia Smith Churchland (1986;<br />1994). <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fnref5" class="footnoteBackLink" title="Jump back to footnote 5">↩</a><br /></span></li><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><li id="fn6"><span style="font-size:85%;">See Doris and Stich (2005). <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fnref6" class="footnoteBackLink" title="Jump back to footnote 6">↩</a><br /></span></li><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><li id="fn7"><span style="font-size:85%;">See Rorty (1979; 1982) and Margolis (2002). <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fnref7" class="footnoteBackLink" title="Jump back to footnote 7">↩</a><br /></span></li><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><li id="fn8"><span style="font-size:85%;">Myself included, I am sorry to say. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=34137300&postID=3269404228198940798#fnref8" class="footnoteBackLink" title="Jump back to footnote 8">↩</a></span><br /></li></ol></div>Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-11858872138377270572009-02-18T16:46:00.000-08:002009-02-18T17:45:36.817-08:00Whitehead on PhilosophyHas anyone else noticed that there are all these <a href="http://www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/93-STENGERS.html">Science Studies</a> and <a href="http://www.dhalgren.com/Othertexts/articles.html">Lit/Cultural Studies</a> folks into Whitehead now? What's that about?<br /><br />Here's a great bit of Whitehead:<br /><br /><blockquote>Philosophy destroys its usefulness when it indulges in brilliant feats of explaining away.</blockquote>Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-6452865873601388422008-09-08T11:22:00.003-07:002008-09-08T11:22:59.003-07:00Walking and Riding From Hell<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><a href='http://ayankeeinlondon.blogspot.com/2008/09/from-hell-chapter-four-walking-and.html'>This blogger</a> has turned the chapter of <i>From Hell</i> where they tour London into directions for an actual walking tour! It's pretty neat.<br/></div>Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-48680038996213124502008-08-15T11:55:00.001-07:002008-08-15T11:55:42.036-07:00John was sitting in a chair at the window...<p>Sabrina has discovered that someone actually wrote what amounts to <a href='http://www.amazon.com/John-Anzia-American-Romance-Literature/dp/0815604513'>John Dewey fan fiction</a>! Unbelievable. </p><p>A little sample:</p><blockquote> <p>"I can't be less than honest with you. You're a god-awful cooking teacher."</p> <p>"Learn from experience, you wrote!" She defended herself with his own ideas, though she understood them better than she practiced: indifference isn't experience; chaos isn't experiment.</p> <p>Absently, lost in reflection, he took up one egg, then two, cracking them against the pan as if to test for himself the possibilities in this encounter with eggs.</p> <p>Their insides slipped out and lay in the pan like the breasts of a woman reclining, the soft padded circles fallen back against her body. They looked at him. They hissed in their butter. (p. 33)</p></blockquote><p>And this is for her <em>research!!</em> (Sort of.)</p>Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-87572088380272788582008-07-21T09:37:00.000-07:002008-07-21T09:39:03.208-07:00Dragon*Con Academic Mini-ConferenceCall for Participation<br /><br />Institute for Comics Studies <br />Comic Book Convention Conference Series <br /><br /><center>DRAGON*CON ACADEMIC MINI-CONFERENCE<br /><br />Atlanta, Georgia<br />August 29-September 1, 2008</center><br /><br />The Institute for Comic Studies and the Comics and Pop Art division of Dragon*Con are working together to develop an academic conference for the studies of comics and pop art to take place at Dragon-Con, the largest multi-media, popular culture convention focusing on science fiction and fantasy, gaming, comics, literature, art, music, and film in the US.<br /><br />Please submit a proposal for a 20-minute presentation that engages in substantial scholarly examinations of comic books, graphic novels, and pop art. A broad range of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives is being sought, including literary and art criticism, philosophy, linguistics, history, and communication. Proposals may range from discussions of the nature of the comics medium, analyses of particular works and authors, discussions of the visual language of comics, to comics pedagogy, and more. <br /><br />The academic track of Dragon*Con represents the Institute for Comics Studies’ mission to promote the study, understanding, and cultural legitimacy of comics and to support the discussion and dissemination of this study and understanding via public venues.<br /><br /><center>100-word proposals due: ASAP or by August 1, 2008:<br /><br />Matthew Brown<br />Dragon*Con Mini-Conference Chair<br />mattbrown@ucsd.edu <br />Subject line: "ICS: Dragon*Con Proposal"<br />www.instituteforcomicsstudies.org</center><br /><br />Due to the tight deadline and scheduling constraints, early submission is the best guarantor of acceptanceMatthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-74489932216611400522008-07-18T01:36:00.000-07:002008-07-18T01:38:00.622-07:00Dragon*Con Guest List<a href="http://dragoncon.org/dc_guest_detail.php?id=1892">Check out who</a> is on the Dragon*Con Guest List!<br /><br />And check out the first <a href="http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_search_results.php?strShow=22&chkCat[]=138">Comic Arts Conference</a> panel on Saturday at Comic-Con!Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-63857252378360997912008-07-11T16:02:00.000-07:002008-07-11T16:06:14.215-07:00relational quantum mechanics for the win!So, <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1006232">my paper</a> on Rovelli's relational interpretation of quantum mechanics was accepted by the <i>British Journal for the Philosophy of Science</i>. Pretty sweet!Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-41150308180658008792008-06-15T11:30:00.000-07:002008-06-15T12:28:35.522-07:00CPA Report 6: A Feast Fit for Philosopher-Kings(<a href="http://sequentialphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/06/cpa-report-1-woooah-canada.html">Part 1</a>, <a href="http://sequentialphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/06/cpa-report-2-i-win.html">Part 2</a>, <a href="http://sequentialphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/06/cpa-report-3-throw-em-to-lions.html">Part 3</a>, <a href="http://sequentialphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/06/cpa-report-4-value-of-values.html">Part 4</a>, <a href="http://sequentialphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/06/cpa-report-5.html">Part 5</a>)<br /><br />After the last set of talks yesterday, there was a nice little wine-and-snacks reception. (Did I mention that this trip is totally blowing my diet? But I did (barely) manage to avoid ordering poutine today for lunch!) It was a great time. Roger, Eran, Jaime, Boaz, and the other fellows I got to hang out with over the last few days are really bright, exciting philosophers. I'm thinking that having these fellows to tussle with over the next 5-10 years will make being a philosopher of science very exciting!<br /><br />Then, somehow, I got Jacob to talk me into buying someone's ticket for the banquet. It was CAN$ 40, which at the going rate is, what, $60? $100? But I got to meet some really excellent philosophers and historians, such as Bernie Lightman, Margaret Schabas, Gordon Something, and several others. I probably unwisely avoided interacting with Alan Richardson again, as well. And I was glutted with a feast of fancy Chinese.<br /><br />It was good. Plagued by momentary fits of boredom and anxiety as all such events are, but I enjoyed my conversations with people for the most part. <br /><br />Now, better than a week later, after our quarter is finally over and I got back to this post, things aren't near so fresh in my mind. The next day included some talks on Kuhn and Feyerabend, a hilarious note-passing discussion with Danny Goldstick about whether realist arguments tended to be question-begging against Kuhn, and the long attempt to get home from the conference. It was a good time. Oh, also, I <i>talked</i> to Jon Johnston over the phone, which I wasn't expecting to be able to do nearly so soon. It was very nice.Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34137300.post-40577654958463796572008-06-05T11:05:00.000-07:002008-06-05T11:22:46.166-07:00CPA Report 5My last session of the day yesterday was called "Around Quantum Mechanics," which is about right, since quantum mechanics was more or less secondary to each of the presenters topics. First up was Eran Tal, illustrious former guest of the former Beck-Brown-Skywalker household, doing a talk on "Simulated Evidence: Signatures of a Quantum Phase Transition." I think his case study is really interesting, and its going to blow a bunch of stuff wide open. He's looking at cases in which theorists (at Oxford?), using computer simulations based in part on the theory, and in part on the description of an experimental device used by a set of experimentalists in Zurich studying phase transitions between superfluids and Mott-insulators. By simulating both together, and varying certain assumptions about initial conditions and the background device, these theorists claim to have shown that the Zurich experiment (whose results are somewhat messy) was a <i>successful</i> detection of the phase transition, since the signature produced in their simulation has a qualitative match to the results produced in Zurich. In other words, they claim to have shown (a) that the Zurich experiment was reliable, and (b) that the Zurich experiment successfully measured what the theory predicted, when neither was certain before. <br /><br />This is super-interesting! What they did cannot be said to be an elaborate prediction from theory, nor clarification of the data, but rather some combination of the two, plus something else besides. Most interesting to me, as I pointed out to Eran later at the reception, is how this clearly raises a problem for the Suppes/Giere theory about different levels of models which nonetheless come in two flavors: models of data and theoretical/representational models. I'm not sure what Giere should say, nor am I sure what a Deweyan should say (this process doesn't clearly fit on either side of the existential/conceptual gap distinction, either). <br /><br />Next, Melanie Frappier gave a talk entitled "If 'Copenhagen' is Leibzig's Code Name, What does 'Interpretation' Mean?: A Re-examination of the Origin of the Copenhagen Interpretation." Melanie was responding to Don Howard's paper, which suggests Heisenberg invented the notion of a unified "Copenhagen" interpretation in the 1950's, but that whatever Heisenberg identified wasn't Bohr's "complementarity" view, and it wasn't really a consensus at all. She agreed with the former point, but denied the later, based on a nuance about what the physicists meant by "interpretation." She showed clearly that from much earlier on, various physicists talked about "interpretation," but that this sense of interpretation is very different from what we mean today. In particular, she gave reasons to believe that the theory has a <i>univocal</i> interpretation, in Heisenberg's sense of "interpretation." <br /><br />If you think about it, it makes sense. A theory is <i>not</i> just a formal-mathematical system; it is also a set of concepts related together in a certain way, where each concept has a certain meaning, or empirical criterion of application, or something. What an alternative interpretation would have to provide, which most "interpretations" of quantum mechanics today don't, is an alternative criterion of empirical application for the terms of the theory. All the insistence by Bohmians and others that their interpretation has identical empirical results sounds to Heisenberg like they have the same interpretation. All the other stuff is not part of what physicists do. (This makes sense of something I've puzzled with for a long time, which is David Finkelstein's insistence that quantum theory already comes with an interpretation, so there is little sense to the project of "interpreting" quantum theory.) <br /><br />Isaac Record gave an interesting talk on "Instruments of Explanation" which I'm not going to summarize. He was arguing, basically, that new instruments provide new realms of "technological possibility," which unlike logical and physical possibility, is sensitive to contingent facts and to practical issues like time it takes to complete a procedure. On his view, computers really open up a new realm of possible explanations, because we can realistically consider options that we couldn't before we had super-fast computers. Something to think about, with real echoes in Dewey's own concept of relations and potentials. <br /><br />Off to the Aeroport!Matthew J. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730262274655726070noreply@blogger.com0