The Brains Blog

Josh Dever is concerned that philosophers don’t cite Ph.D. dissertations enough.  To try to counter that, he has created a webpage with links to some philosophy dissertations.  (Link couresy of Brandon Towl.)

Price announcement.  Some comments on it.  (Courtesy of Zvi Biener.)

Here.

In response to his message quoted below, I asked John Roberts if we would expand on why he thinks that even allowing the observability of singular causal facts, most leading anti-Humean accounts of laws remain incompatible with Earman and Roberts’ argument. At any rate, John Roberts wrote as follows (it would be interesting to know what supporters of anti-Humeanism about laws have to say about it):

In a previous post, I argued that Earman and Roberts, in their 2005 PPR articles on Humean Supervenience (HS) about laws of nature, were implicitly relying on the view that nomic facts (such as singular causal facts) are unobservable. There followed an interesting discussion. But the question that none of us could answer was, what do Earman and Roberts think about HS vis a vis the observability of nomic facts?
John Roberts wrote me as follows (reproduced by permission):

Women in philosophy are notorious underrepresented.  Brit Brogaard has written a useful summary of a recent APA symposium on the status of women in the profession.You might notice that women are especially underrepresented on Brains.  Out of 14 contributors (including me), only one is a woman.  (Thank you, Anna-Mari.)  This …