Here’s a review from the NYT by the ever caustic Colin McGinn (one of my favourite philosophers of mind, however unfashionable some might think he is). H/T to Paul Raymont for the link and for tracking the toing and froing. Here is the equally polemical Raymond Tallis with a joint review of Deacon and Gazzaniga.
Efraim Podoksik’s The Cambridge Companion to Oakeshott is now available. Check out Efraim’s intro.
Rob’s contribution to the Extended Mind special issue of CSR:
This essay begins by addressing the role of the so-called Parity Principle in arguments for extended cognition. It is concluded that the Parity Principle does not, by itself, demarcate cognition and that another mark of the cognitive must be sought. The second section of the paper advances two arguments against the extended view of cognition, one of which – the conservatism-or-simplicity argument – appeals to principles of theory selection, and the other of which – the argument from demarcation – draws on a systems-based theory of cognition. The final section contests the claim, made by Andy Clark, that empirical work done by Wayne Gray and colleagues supports the extended view.
Lead article from the latest Economist.
Yet another strong Wiley title. David Coady also did a fine job of guest editing EPISTEME for a themed issue on Conspiracy Theories (aside from Harry Frankfurt’s little book where else would a title in mainstream academia have the word “shit” so prominent – see Pete Mandik’s paper).
From The Guardian – here as well.
Check out this new book I’ve just come across – Wiley’s lists, across disciplines, is certainly looking very strong these days. Also check out two colleagues’ excellent Wiley offerings – Ted Lewis’ Network Science and of course Ken Aizawa’s and Fred Adams’ The Bounds of Cognition.
Sandel plugging his latest. The journalist’s quote below has much resonance to me.
Even to a toddler’s mind, the logic of the transaction was evidently clear – if he had to be bribed, then the potty couldn’t be a good idea – and within a week he had grown so suspicious and upset that we had to abandon the whole enterprise.
A recent book in the EM genre.
Here is Walt Weimer’s brief but valued contribution to Hayek in Mind. Wiemer did so much to bring Hayek’s philosophical psychology to the wider world – and for that we are deeply indebted to him. It’s still really worth checking out Weimer’s work.
Occasionally I am asked how I came to the work of Friedrich Hayek and why I promoted it (to a mainly psychological audience) through conferences and writings in the 1970’s and 1980’s during the period when I was able to indulge my hobby of studying interesting questions as an “almost” or part-time academic (Weimer, 1974; 1982). Usually it is assumed that I was a psychologist who came across The Sensory Order (Hayek, 1952) and saw its relevance to the “cognitive revolution” then in progress. While partly true, I was never primarily a psychologist – I have always been a student of interesting problems and I do not recognize the sanctity of academic or bureaucratic boundaries. The only problem that consumes me is the nature of knowledge and its acquisition and use. My autobiography would be titled “What Little I Know” in contrast to a physicist of the ‘80’s famous for “What Little I Remember.” I am, in short, primarily an evolutionary epistemologist, as the field has been pioneered by Don Campbell. Hayek had studied the same issues and had similarly been an outsider, a “marginal man,” who was primarily an evolutionary epistemologist usually mistaken for either an economist or political philosopher.
manwithoutqualities 