This is Edouard Machery's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Edouard Machery's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Edouard Machery
Recent Activity
Elizabeth O'Neill (Pitt, HPS) and I are editing a collection of new experimental-philosophy papers: Current Controversies in Experimental Philosophy, with articles authored or co-authored by Genoveva Marti, Justin Sytsma, Adam Arico, Shaun Nichols, Eddy Nahmias, Josh Knobe, Joshua Alexander, Jonathan Weinberg, Jennifer Nagel, myself, and others. We are really excited... Continue reading
Posted Aug 16, 2013 at Experimental Philosophy
Past research suggests variation in people's commitment to descriptivism and the causal-historical theory of proper names. A natural and important question to ask is whether this variation has further psychological consequences: Do descriptivists and Kripkeans differ in other, related respects? In particular, one may wonder whether descriptivists and Kripkeans view... Continue reading
Posted Aug 12, 2013 at Experimental Philosophy
Hyo-eun Kim, a Junior Fellow in the Mind-Brain Research Group Transdisciplinary Research Program at the Korea Institute for Advanced Study (KIAS) in Seoul has put together a very interesting study on mindreading, and she would like philosophers to participate. So, spare five minutes of your time, and take her survey.... Continue reading
Posted Aug 5, 2013 at Experimental Philosophy
This is simply incorrect. Releasing the histogram for each department (number of answers for each possible option) does not compromise anonymity and the histograms contain all the relevant information for looking at variance and outliers. That said, I doubt that it is fair to ask BL to do the extra work to provide these histograms.
John, I am not confident that the breakdown by gender has much significance since the selection bias surely works differently from male and female empirically-oriented philosophers of mind. I particularly doubt that you can put much faith in the effect size. On the other hand, that there is a difference between gender for the questions you asked is plausible: It is consistent with much research that men would believe that everything's fine for women.
Eric, I don't understand your first point. If you want to conclude confidently that x% of women in a specific sub-field believe p on the basis of the fact that x% of then in a sample believe p, the sample must have been drawn randomly from the population of women in this sub-field - or at least must have been drawn in a manner than approximates random sampling (e.g., haphazard sampling). (But perhaps I am missing the point.) Your second point is right, but as a philosopher of psychology I can tell you that 30 people is a small sample. Also, the analogy with he panels in the GR is not appropriate: The GR is not a poll, but a survey of experts, and the panels are not samples from populations.
Before drawing any conclusion from this survey, it may be worth keeping in mind its very small sample size as well as the fact that its sample was not drawn randomly, to say the least (a link was posted on a thread discussing gender issues in philosophy).
I learned this summer that for a long time ISHPSSB (http://www.ishpssb.org/) had a policy not to meet in states with sodomy laws.
Or perhaps some think it is a tempest in a teacup they want no association with?