Planet? I just make et up as I go along! 
In my discussion about whether planet is a natural kind, I focus just on our solar system. Although we expect there to be planets around other stars as well, I say we don't know enough about the structure of other solar systems to generalize too much. I also comment that a gas giant which didn't orbit a star would not be a planet.

There's lots of interesting recent astronomy which makes my claims about the details out of date.

Further work has allowed astronomers to identify dozens of planets orbiting other stars, so-called exoplanets. The amateur techniques for discovery are sufficiently routine that many of the discoveries have been made by amateur astronomers. Of course, we don't have - and may never have - ways of detecting smaller objects like Trojan asteroids in the orbits of exoplanets.

Last Fall, astronomers discovered what most news sources have described as a "rogue planet" and which the paper announcing it calls a "free-floating planet". Despite such loose talk, sources are clear that it is still an open question whether the object formed around a star (and so was born like a planet) or formed out on its own (and lacked sufficient mass to ignite as a star). In the introduction to the paper, the authors use the more cautious phrase 'Isolated Planetary Mass Object' (IPMO).

These are cool findings which I would discuss if I were writing the book now, rather than two years ago. The difference would just be in the details, though, and I think my general conclusions still hold.

Since natural kinds are contingent and identifying them is fallible, though, I fully expect there to eventually be some discoveries which entirely undo something that I say in the book. I would be deeply suspicious of any philosophy of science which was immunized against such revision.

[ add comment ] ( 4565 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Meet the new problems, same as the old problems 
In a recent item at 3 Quarks Daily under the title The Problems of Philosophy, philosophers Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse lament that (according to them) contemporary professional philosophers are too worried about what's wrong with professional philosophy and pay too little attention to genuine philosophical problems. They mark this distinction by writing lower-case-p "philosophy" for the activity of thinking about hard problems and upper-case-P "Philosophy" for the profession. After starting with a poorly-adapted joke,* they pose their worry this way:
It should come as no surprise that philosophy should still be in the business of self-examination. But one may be stunned to find that, perhaps more than ever, the profession of Philosophy is fixed on questions of its existence. ... So, why does Philosophy - capital "P" – exist?


[ 2 comments ] ( 5885 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Bizarro am always been realist 
The 50th anniversary of the publication of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has prompted numerous authors to write pieces about what we really learned from Kuhn. Reading two of these, I am struck by the sense of having been whisked away to Bizarro world.

[ 2 comments ] ( 7103 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Debriefing * science 
The last day of classes for the semester was yesterday. I was teaching Understanding Science (an intro to science studies course) and Philosophy of Science (a survey for advanced undergrad and grad students). As is my usual practice, I asked students which topics I definitely should include when I teach the course again and which I should omit. This is partly to focus their attention on which topics were substantively rewarding and which not, but I also take it into account when revising a course.

To me surprise, there was not a groundswell of dissatisfaction for any of the topics in either course. This is somewhat reassuring to me, because I have taught both courses many times now. I have made piecemeal changes to them over time. Although every change was meant to make them better, I often feel as if the syllabuses have become patchwork monsters.

[ add comment ] ( 4691 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
The FOE digest for 2012 
This post continues the tradition of taking the first sentence from the first post of every month in order to generate a summary of the year's blogging; cf. 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

I: Regarding the lengths of things that I've written, the manuscript for the unstably named book on natural kinds is about 75K words.

II: In summarizing his philosophical approach to the photographer Steve Pyke, David Lewis said...

III: I wrote my dissertation on the underdetermination of theory by data.

IV: [n/a]

V: I have completed the index for my forthcoming book, which is to appear in September.

VI: In a commencement address at University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Neil Gaiman offers the following advice...

VII: Jim Holt, writing in the New York Times' philosophy blog The Stone, asks whether philosophy can be literature and answers yes.

VIII: My open access logic book, forall x, is going to be used this Fall for the first year logic course at Cambridge.

IX: In an epicycle of self-promotion, I am profiled by the UAlbany College of Arts and Sciences because my open access logic textbook was adopted at Cambridge.

X: In a post over at Crooked Timber, John Quiggin invokes the distinction between scholars who follow a K-strategy and those that follow an r-strategy.

XI: Consider the sentence, "Tautologists all agree."

XII: Via Brian Leiter and Mohan Matthen, I came across Alvin Plantinga's review in the New Republic of Thomas Nagel's newbook.

Despite my intention to blog a little each month, I posted nothing for April. I've managed to avoid such gaps since November 2008, when I was similarly silent. Other than the fact that 2008 was also a light year for blogging, I don't think there are any parallels worth noting.

Content from months where I did post looks to be about one half musings launched by something that I read on-line and one half me talking about my books. A light cocktail of non sequitur and horn tooting.

[ add comment ] ( 4543 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink

<<First <Back | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | Next> Last>>