Saturday, March 3, 2012

APA Session Rule #5

If the main paper is centrally a criticism of some philosopher, X, and if the commentator generally agrees that X is wrong, and if X is not in the audience, it is incumbent on someone in the audience to defend X.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with most of your rules, but this one is just dumb. There's no reason to defend something that is obviously wrong, especially when this might derail an otherwise fruitful conversation that presupposes the claim in question is false.

Anonymous said...

I think Anonymous at 3:03 doesn't understand the rule. If the paper is centrally a criticism of X, and the paper was accepted, then surely philosopher X has some merits. This rule does not demand we defend obviously wrong propositions, it demands someone defend central figures who are being objected to if no one else has done so. Seems reasonable.

Anonymous said...

New objections to views that have already been discredited occur all the time. It is important to not just reject a false views, but reject it for the right reason. The rule would require that even if everyone at the talk thinks the view is wrong and there is a fruitful discussion about why it is wrong and whether the new objection really gets at the fundamental problem with the view, some poor schmuck in the audience should get up and try to defend the view--thereby derailing the entire conversation. Good idea.

Glaucon said...

"As far as I know, outside the black nationalist movement no one has ever been named 'x'."
Naming and Necessity, p. 107.

Anonymous said...

Did that "x" quantify over "Malcolms"? Just sayin'.

4:04 again said...

I don't think the situation suggested by 5:35 falls under the rule. 5:35's case would be one where the main point of the paper is not a criticism of some philosopher, X. It is where the main point of the paper is that some previous objections to a view, V, are bad ones, and we should instead reject V for new reasons. This seems to be a case where there is a presumption in the paper that V is incorrect, and so surely it is not necessary to argue with this in Q&A (though someone might want to), but that is different than the purpose of the paper being to show that V is incorrect, and the commentator agreeing that V is incorrect. That seems to be the case that the rule is meant to cover.

Anonymous said...

I take it that it's incumbent on someone other than Spiros to defend X?

Racer X said...

Suck it, Kripke. You too, Glaucon.

(Am I doing it right, Spiros? Someone has to defend your view against the speaker and his sympathetic commentator, at least until you get back?)

Anonymous said...

blog thread is not APA session, jerkies.

Racer X said...

Dear anon, thank you for your comment. I really appreciate it. We should spend some time discussing it. After all, you did go to all the trouble of actually typing it. So thank you again. Good of you. As for the substance of your comment, it is really not true that Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulation, makes it illegal for U. S. citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their vehicles. So I must respectfully and regretfully disagree. It only forbids procreative acts.