I think Matt DeStefano's comment on this post (on Facebook) is spot on. I hope I am not violating any privacy issues by including it here. Matt DeStefano: "... I worry that using [FB] the way professional philosophers often use it leads to exacerbated group polarization (I know Berit and you have both blogged about this). It would also be interesting to see whether FB gets more or less people outside of certain social circles involved in these discussions. My guess is that it probably excludes more people that either aren't 'friends' with those in that circle or don't have FB at all, compared to a blog where anybody aware of its existence can interact. That seems worrying as well." BL COMMENT: Matt said it was OK, thanks.

"I was concerned, when I was organizing the schedules for my department, not to make any differences between parents and non-parents, although there was a lot of pressure to favor parents' demands" Parents' demands are not always unreasonable. There are some things that are not within the (reasonable) control of those of us who have children. For example, I cannot attend a department talk or meeting from 8-10 am or 4-6 pm. Of course, I could hire a full-time nanny to take care of my child but I choose to raise my child on my own. And I can't get reliable baby-sitters morning and night every other day. It's just not feasible.

Very insightful, Helen. In my case, having a child was feasible but having a partner and a child was not. Both types of commitment are extremely time-consuming, and I simply don't have time for both, while also doing research.

Yes, oh my god, the list is so long. It's so obvious. Thank you!

Wonderful! Thank you! I already took off socks and gloves and my daughter's as well.

Welcome to the site, JW Showalter!

I consider a lot of my work "fairly technical." I have written on the knowability paradox, for example. Catarina on this blog does fairly technical work. Friederike Moltmann does fairly technical work. Just three examples. It's obviously nonsense.

Thank you for the reference. I will have a look.

Yes, I agree with Matt. Leiter did respond calmly to every post on that thread until Drabek called him "champ." It was at that point that Leiter asked him to "revise his tone." I am a little concerned about some of these posts. I am aware of this morning's post on FP, stating that there is no witch hunt going on in philosophy right now. But I think we should attempt to be professional about these issues and not call out people unnecessarily. As I tell my grad students, a devastating objection presented super-calmly is much more forceful than one presented in an aggressive tone. This applies to all of these issues as well. I think we need to present our arguments like professional philosophers.

No, but the red cat looks almost like Chisholm. Russell is black.

I would be interested in knowing the answer to that question as well.

I think the goose from the Odd Couples might just be in love with, or have a crush on, the tortoise. So, I guess I think some of the chemical aspects of love that we feel can be felt by non-human animals and can draw them to each other.

Yes, what I had in mind was something like the chemical aspects of falling in love. Those seem biological and can even be sparked by additional adrenaline in the presence of another person.

Hi Alan and Sara, Yes, that makes sense. My cats follow me around the house. They are exactly where I am. If I take a shower, they are sitting on the sink waiting for me to finish. If I am in the kitchen, they are in the kitchen. If I am on the couch or bed, they snuggle up close to me and each other. They also have learned to recognize my facial expressions and certain verbal expressions. If they scratch the furniture, I just have to look at them or quietly ask them to stop, and they stop. If I mention the word 'food' (in Danish), they run to their bowls.

That's really interesting. My cats also tend to eat about the same, which means that if one is sick, the other loses weight as well.

Nature is cruel. I am glad my male cats are castrated.

Yes, and cats don't ovulate until they actually mate. So, all the talk of ovulation and heightened sexual interest in females doesn't seem to apply to cats.

That's really interesting. I hope others will follow their lead.

Yes, some information would be good. I don't know what their plans are. But I know of some other people elsewhere who are thinking about putting this kind of evaluation together.

That's also a very good point. And it raises another potential problem (letter writing).

Yes, they *did*, but they *are* listening to commenters' concerns and are thinking about possibly redoing it with some other people in the social sciences. The authors are well-meaning, very intelligent, and very reasonable people. They don't work in the social sciences but in philosophy. But they never meant any harm. They just want to help improve the profession. They have learned something from this experience. And I prefer to treat my students as independent individuals who can make their own decisions. I don't decide on their behalf whether or not to suspend any surveys or whether to initiate them. I don't censor my students. I try to advice them. But I cannot and should not advice them on everything. The reasonable decision that they have come to is their own.

That's never going to happen. They are not planning to do a ranking of departments. We already have a Gourmet report. For all I know, they are not going to release the information about departments together with the comments. Perhaps they will leave the comments out for everyone to see without being linked to individual departments (just like the blog that allows women to post their stories). So, what's the point (you might say)? Well, just as the blog can have fake stories, there could be fake comments here. But it will help give people a picture of what it's like not to be, say, a white, abled, straight man in philosophy. And the authors are very reasonable people. So, I very much doubt that anyone has anything to fear.