< 669 older entriesHome21 newer entries >

Refereeing as as Service

There should be a website (or app) that helps with the following kinds of issues.

  • I recently wrote a paper on ability modals in which I sketch some ideas for how a certain linguistic phenomenon might be compositionally derived. I'm really unsure about that part of the paper, because I'm not an expert in the relevant areas of formal semantics. I'd like to get advice from an expert, but none of my friends are, and I don't want to bother people I don't know.
  • I once wrote a paper on decision-theoretic methods in non-consequentialist ethics. But I don't know much about ethics. I'd need someone to tell me how non-consequentialists typically think about decisions under uncertainty, who has already tried to sell decision-theoretic methods for that purpose, and what key papers I need to read.
  • When I submit papers to journals, I often get rejections pointing out problems that are easy to fix. It would have been good if someone had pointed out these problems to me before I submitted the paper.
  • I think many of my drafts and papers are a little hard to understand, but I'm not sure why. I'd like someone to give me feedback on which passages are confusing, where a reader might get lost, etc.

Basically, I'd like to hire (different kinds of) referees to look over my drafts and give me constructive feedback.

Lewis's empiricism

Last week, I gave a talk in Manchester at a (very nice) workshop on "David Lewis and His Place in the History of Analytic Philosophy". My talk was on "Lewis's empiricism". I've now written it up as a paper, since it got too long for a blog post.

The paper is really about hyperintensional epistemology. The question is how we can make sense of the kind of metaphysical enquiry Lewis was engaged in if we accept his models of knowledge and belief, which leave no room for substantive investigations into non-contingent matters.

From Sensor Variables to Phenomenal Facts

I wrote this short piece for a special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies on Chalmers's "The Meta-Problem of Consciousness" (2018). Much of my paper rehashes ideas from section 5 of my "Imaginary Foundations" paper, but here I try to present these ideas more simply and directly, without the Bayesian background.

The central claim I try to defend is that the hard problem of consciousness arises from a particular method by which our brain processes sensory input. Agents whose brain uses that method can be expected to be puzzled about phenomenal consciousness, even if they live in a purely physical world. The story is meant to answer the "meta-problem" of what gives rise to our puzzlement about consciousness, but it is also meant to dissolve the first-order problem: once we understand the source of the puzzlement, we should no longer be puzzled.

How to serve two epistemic masters

In this 2018 paper, J. Dmitri Gallow shows that it is difficult to combine multiple deference principles. The argument is a little complicated, but the basic idea is surprisingly simple.

Suppose A and B are two weather forecasters. Let r be the proposition that it will rain tomorrow, let A=x be the proposition that A assigns probability x to r; similarly for B=x. Here are two deference principles you might like to follow:

(1) Cr(r / A=x) = x.
(2) Cr(r / B=x) = x.

Now conceivably, A and B might issue different forecasts. So what should you believe on the assumption that A=x and B=y, where x and y are different? One natural idea is to split the difference:

Relativism and absolutism in deontic logic

Consider a world where eating doughnuts is illegal and where everyone thinks it is OK to torture animals for fun. Suppose Norman at w is eating doughnuts while torturing his pet kittens. Is he violating the laws? Is he doing something immoral?

In one sense, yes, in another, no. His doughnut eating violates the laws of w, but not the laws of our world. Conversely, his kitten torturing violates a moral code accepted at our world, but not a code accepted at w.

In general, when we ask whether people at other worlds do what they ought to do, we can evaluate their actions relative to their norms, or we can evaluate them relative to our norms. Both perspectives make sense. But they lead to different deontic logics.

On Functional Decision Theory

I recently refereed Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares's "Functional Decision Theory" for a philosophy journal. My recommendation was to accept resubmission with major revisions, but since the article had already undergone a previous round of revisions and still had serious problems, the editors (understandably) decided to reject it. I normally don't publish my referee reports, but this time I'll make an exception because the authors are well-known figures from outside academia, and I want to explain why their account has a hard time gaining traction in academic philosophy. I also want to explain why I think their account is wrong, which is a separate point.

Duals of knowledge and belief

On the modal analysis of belief, 'S believes that p' is true iff p is true at all possible worlds compatible with S's belief state. So 'believes' is a necessity modal. One might expect there to be a dual possibility modal, a verb V such that 'S Vs that p' is true iff p is true at some worlds compatible with S's belief state. But there doesn't seem to be any such verb in English (or German). Why not?

What do we use if we want to say that something is compatible with someone's beliefs? Suppose at some worlds compatible with Betty's belief state, it is currently snowing. We could express this by "Betty does not believe that it is not snowing". But (for some reason) that's really hard to parse.

Gibbard and Jackson on the probability of conditionals

Gibbard's 1981 paper "Two recent theories of conditionals" contains a famous passage about a poker game on a riverboat.

Sly Pete and Mr. Stone are playing poker on a Mississippi riverboat. It is now up to Pete to call or fold. My henchman Zack sees Stone's hand, which is quite good, and signals its content to Pete. My henchman Jack sees both hands, and sees that Pete's hand is rather low, so that Stone's is the winning hand. At this point, the room is cleared. A few minutes later, Zack slips me a note which says "If Pete called, he won," and Jack slips me a note which says "If Pete called, he lost." I know that these notes both come from my trusted henchmen, but do not know which of them sent which note. I conclude that Pete folded.

One puzzle raised by this scenario is that it seems perfectly appropriate for Zack and Jack to assert the relevant conditionals, and neither Zack nor Jack has any false information. So it seems that the conditionals should both be true. But then we'd have to deny that 'if p then q' and 'if p then not-q' are contrary.

One-boxing and objective consequentialism

I've been reading about objective consequentialism lately. It's interesting how pervasive and natural the use of counterfactuals is in this context: what an agent ought to do, people say, is whichever available act would lead to the best outcome (if it were chosen). Nobody thinks that an agent ought to choose whichever act will lead to the best outcome (if it is chosen). The reason is clear: the indicative conditional is information-relative, but the 'ought' of objective consequentialism is not supposed to be information-relative. (That's the point of objective consequentialism.) The 'ought' of objective consequentialism is supposed to take into account all facts, known and unknown. But while it makes perfect sense to ask what would happen under condition C given the totality of facts @, even if @ does not imply C, it arguably makes no sense to ask what will happen under condition C given @, if @ does not imply C.

The probability that if A then B

It has often been pointed out that the probability of an indicative conditional 'if A then B' seems to equal the corresponding conditional probability P(B/A). Similarly, the probability of a subjunctive conditional 'if A were the case then B would be the case' seems to equal the corresponding subjunctive conditional probability P(B//A). Trying to come up with a semantics of conditionals that validates these equalities proves tricky. Nonetheless, people keep trying, buying into all sorts of crazy ideas to make the equalities come out true.

I am puzzled about these efforts, for two reasons.

< 669 older entriesHome21 newer entries >