This post is Part 1i with the topics being Zombies, Teletransporter and Laws of Nature. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1h with the topics being Moral Judgement, Epistemic Justification and Personal Identity. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1g with the topics being Truth, The Experience Machine and Abstract Objects. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1f with the topics being Science, Gender and Race. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1e with the topics being Metaethics, Analytic-Synthetic Distinction and Aesthetic Value. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1d with the topics being Mind, Meaning of Life and Knowledge. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1c with the topics being Normative Ethics, Footbridge Experiment and the Trolley Problem. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1b with the topics being External World, Free Will and A priori knowledge. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1a with the topics being Aim of Philosophy, God and Eating Animals. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

I just want to quote from a reddit comment I ran across on how to deal with people who want to argue about terrible positions and are more concerned with scoring debate points than having a reasonable discussion. This is as much a reminder to myself as a note to others. This comment can be found at https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/77hda6/how_to_deal_with_unproductive_gadflies_like/. “Card carrying Sophist here (a rhetorican who teaches philosophy). There is no sure fire way to deal with these folks, but there are a few things worth suggesting.

I was watching a youtube video on Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity and reading the comments left me thinking about the many feet of lumber in both the eyes of the commenters and myself. I’m going to somewhat change the terminology used because it is rather loaded with dog whistles and use a made-up word “upcculf” or “upcculfity”, which I will define as a state of conciousness of a true believer in X (left wing, right wing, multi-level marketing, crypto currencies, anti-vax, blind intellectualism, … [insert name your belief to which you have become a convert]).

I recently had a useless discussion with someone who was unwilling to either wear a mask or vaccinate and took the position: “If the vaccines work why the fear, and if they do not work why take the risk of getting them?” His refusal to wear a mask was based on his trust in his immune system “I’m healthy and if you wear a mask you are living in fear and halfway dead already.

I am in the process of reading a study on creativity and semantic distance. A McGill University newsroom article on it is here. The concept is fairly simple - more creative people will find connections between words that general usage would indicate are “less” connected. “Cat” and “dog” have the feeling of being “related” words. “Cat” and “test tube” feel like “more unrelated” words. Efforts have been done (see the study link) on measuring the “relatedness” of words by crawling the internet and measuring how close the word pairs are to each other in normal usage.