Brian Leiter has picked up on the comment by LK McPherson that is also discussed in my post on the APA newsletter, which is several posts down from this one. Readers here might want to have a look at what’s going on over there.
Salzburg Conference for Young Analytic Philosophy: SOPhiA 2011
September 8-10, 2011
Department of Philosophy (Humanities), University of Salzburg,
Franziskanergasse 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
Extended Deadline: June 21 2011
Students and doctoral candidates (pre-doc) of philosophy are hereby
encouraged to submit an abstract on any philosophical topic (applied methods
should stand in the tradition of Analytic Philosophy). The abstract should
not exceed 2000 characters and should be written in German or English
without indication of the author; it should be suitable for a presentation
of approximately 20 minutes in length. Please submit your abstract with a
bibliographical note of yourself and a short CV attached in a separate
document at http://www.sophia-conference.org/ until June 21 2011.
– Norbert Gratzl (Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy)
– Heinrich Ganthaler (University of Salzburg)
– Norbert Hoerster (Mainz)
– Reinhard Kleinknecht (University of Salzburg)
– Edgar Morscher (University of Salzburg)
– C. Ulises Moulines (LMU Munich)
– Hans Rott (University of Regensburg)
– Olivier Roy (Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy)
– Gerhard Schurz (University of Duesseldorf)
– Clemens Sedmak (King’s College London)
CFP: Feminist Epistemology and Philosophical Traditions
Call for papers
Society for Women in Philosophy
Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy, Kingston University London
Feminist Epistemology and Philosophical Traditions
London, Friday 18th-Saturday 19th November 2011
The aim of this conference is to reflect critically on the relation of
feminist epistemology to the various philosophical traditions that
generated it and those that have nourished it intellectually and
challenged it in the past three decades. These traditions include that
of epistemology itself (of course), but also more generally the
analytical philosophical traditions, the continental philosophical
traditions, feminist philosophical traditions, and other
philosophically inflected theoretical traditions, for example
psychoanalytical theory. It is to be hoped that responses to the call
for papers will add to this list.
Questions to be addressed include:
• What, currently, is the relation between feminist epistemology
and the more mainstream traditions of epistemology?
• What influence has feminist epistemology had on the more
mainstream traditions of epistemology, if any?
• Is there any unity to ‘feminist epistemology’ across its
relation to different philosophical traditions (for example the
analytical and the continental traditions)?
• How have other theoretical traditions influenced and
challenged feminist epistemology?
• What is the significance of the mainly Anglo-American
constitution of the field of feminist epistemology?
• ‘What, if anything, remains distinctive about ‘feminist
epistemology’? That is, when is ‘feminist epistemology’ simply
Kirsten Campbell (Goldsmiths, University of London)
‘Feminist Epistemology and Psychoanalytical Theory’
Respondent: Stella Sandford (Kingston University)
Miranda Fricker (Birkbeck College, University of London)
‘Feminist Epistemology as Social Epistemology’
Respondent: Stella Gonzalez Arnal (University of Hull)
Gillian Howie (University of Liverpool)
‘Is There a “Continental” Feminist Epistemology?’
Respondent: Alison Stone (Lancaster University)
Alessandra Tanesini (Cardiff University).
‘From Margin to Centre: Feminist Epistemology as
Socially Responsible Epistemology’
Respondent: Kathleen Lennon (University of Hull)
Submissions for papers for parallel sessions (sessions comprising a
maximum of 3 short – 15–20 minutes – papers each) are invited on any
aspect of feminist epistemology. Graduate students and early career
scholars are particularly encouraged to submit abstracts for the
Please submit abstracts, prepared for anonymous review, of no more
than 500 words to Stella Sandford (S.Sandford@Kingston.ac.uk) by
Friday 24th June 2011. Abstracts will be scrutinised by the Conference
Committee. Decisions will be made by by Friday 22nd July.
Further information: Stella Sandford (S.Sandford@Kingston.ac.uk)
Conference page: http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/activities/item.php?updatenum=1766
Over the last couple of decades, the evidence of implicit bias has been piling up, including evidence of its role in review of journal articles. So you’d think this would lead to more journals adopting a double-anonymous process, in which names of authors are concealed from reviewers. Shocking, then, to learn that The American Economic Review is moving in the opposite direction. As Ingrid Robeyns rightly notes, their reasons are pretty poor: (1) Reviewers can google article names and thereby lose the anonymity. (Robeyns has a great suggestion here: Require submission of articles under a different title from that used online. Also, ask the referees NOT to seek out this information and to reveal that they know the authors identity if they happen to discover it. Yes, some referees might violate this policy. But that’s no reason not to increase fairness by having it!) (2) It’s administratively costly to anonymise. (Yes, but worth every penny if you care about publishing the best work– and not actually all that costly if you build it into the increasingly widely used submission software.) (3) With anonymity, it’s harder for referees to check for potential conflicts of interest. (Fine– then do this at a later stage in the process!)
Petition to follow, I’ve been told.
The World Science Festival has just happened, and last night, there was a session celebrating the triumphs of women scientists, and the various trials and tribulations they face. Some prominent scientists were asked to speak about the journeys that led them to their fields. These included: Jean Berko Gleason, professor emerita of psychology at Boston University and a founder of the field of psycholinguistics; cosmologist and published poet Priyamvada Natarajan who is a professor at Yale; Emcee Faith Salie, a Rhodes scholar who is CBS News Sunday Morning contributor, and a panelist on NPR’s Wait Wait … Don’t Tell Me!; Joy Hirsch, a neuroscientist at Columbia University; cryptographer Tal Rabin, who works at IBM’s T. J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York; and Harvard mathematician Corina Tarnita. You can read more about the event here.
A new study, recently published in the Lancet, has been making headlines with the startling finding that up to 70% of teenage girls in the UK are iodine deficient. Hmmm. Young women. Health issue. Yes, you can guess what’s coming. Here are some headlines:
‘Intelligence of future generations at risk’ (The Scotsman)
‘Babies at risk as girls fail to get enough iodine’ (The Independent)
‘Girls’ lack of iodine could harm babies’ (Daily Mail — always a classic)
It’s true that, should these women at some point decide to become pregnant and have babies, their iodine deficiency could be harmful to their pregnancies and harmful to the resulting babies. But these women’s iodine deficiency is also harmful to them. Now. Whether or not they ever have babies.
<post descends into unintelligible grumbles>