Monthly Archives: November 2009

Some disappointing bigotry from Adam Lee

Adam Lee has a post on polygamy and polyamory that I largely agree with, saying that adults should be allowed to do as they please with regards to their personal relationships, but marriage as a legal institution should be a one-legally-recognized-partner-per-person deal, largely due to practical difficulties with institutionally-supported polygamy. But in the middle of [...]

How agnostic are you willing to be in philosophy?

Should finding out that other people disagree about something with you lead you to be agnostic about it, or at least moderate your views? I tend to think “yes,” but Peter van Inwagen has pointed out one difficulty for this view, especially for philosophy people like me: an awful lot of our beliefs are subjects [...]

Why decent philosophers use too much jargon

In general, I think analytic philosophy (as in current, Anglophone academic philosophy) has a lot going for it. It’s the only subculture in the world that really tries to cultivate the skills needed to think clearly as such, as opposed to just doing competent work in one specialty. But there are also trends in it [...]

Quote of the Time Being

Only two things are certain in life: anti-tax militias and cryogenic freezing. –My roommate Joe

The humble side of the debate

Via Chris Mooney, a tidy example of one of the more annoying kinds of rhetoric that flies in public debates: “Forrest argues that new atheists should respect the personal nature of faith, and nurture a sense of humility by recognising that scientific evidence does not rule out existence of the divine.” The trick is to [...]