VU Philosophy

Don't forget to join us this afternoon at 4pm:

Citizenship in a Networked Age - Online Symposium on Digital Citizenship The breathtaking speed of digitalization in our ‘networked age’ confronts us with entirely new ethical, social and economic questions, like: Can and should we preserve our decency and humanity? How to behave on the internet? How to maintain a common world of citizenship, while ‘social media’...

Looking forward to it!

Check this out:

1. Some philosophy readings on the pandemic:

http://dailynous.com/2020/04/16/philosophy-covid-19-bibliography/

2. Or in Dutch:

https://bijnaderinzien.com/

A Philosophy & COVID-19 Bibliography - Daily Nous

Assistant Professor of Moral and Political Philosophy (tenure-track) - >Werken bij VU Location: AMSTERDAM FTE: 1 Job description The department of philosophy of the VU Amsterdam has a vacancy for an assistant professor (tenure-track) in moral and political philosophy. Teaching will be in the philosophy programme as well as in the inter-faculty...

Follow up from VU Philosopher Chris Ranalli, enjoy!

⚡️Corona epistemology, pt. II

While shopping at the grocery store for pasta and toilet paper during the covid-19 pandemic, G.E. Moore notices a couple of people who are coughing and appear a bit sick. He has a sudden realization:

1. "Here is one cough", as he anxiously avoids a youth wildy coughing. "And here is another cough!", as he passes a middle-aged person reaching for the chamomille tea.
Therefore,
C. "There are at least two people here with corona virus". QED.

Moore gets home, and rehearses this 'proof' to his family. He takes it to be decisive reason to believe that there were people in the store with corona virus. He's certain that he won't be going out there again any time soon!

This proof of course looks pretty suspicious. How could one *prove* that two people have corona virus merely by observing their coughs as Moore did?

Some philosophers maintain that Moore's proof is a genuine proof. His observations did give him reason to believe his conclusion. How things seemed to him at the time was enough. The problem is that it's just not very effective against the naysayers. The naysayers who doubt his conclusion aren't going to be impressed by Moore's observations.

Some other philosophers think that, in some contexts as least, Moore's proof is pretty good. In others, it's pretty bad. Moore's observations of coughing do warrant his conclusion, given our more everyday criteria. However, in a medical context where the criteria are more stringent, Moore's belief would have been unjustified. He would need medical tests or expert advice.

Another group takes it that Moore's coughing-observations do make it reasonable for him to believe that there's some sick people around, but it doesn't support him believing that they have corona virus. To do that, he would need collateral information linking such coughs to corona virus symptoms, which would make his support depend on having some reason to believe his conclusion already!

Still others think Moore was right, and that his observations justify his conclusion. This is because cough-observations divide into two: those which go straight to the facts and those which are mere appearances of it. The former are manifestations of corona virus symptoms, the latter are botched observations or misleading signals. And so as long as they were genuine cases, he was in a position to know that those people had corona virus, right then and there.

The debate over Moore's corona proof rages on ✋🤚😷

CFP: International Conference Cultural perceptions of safety (DL: 1/6/2020) - Huizinga Instituut On Thursday 21st and Friday 22nd of January 2021, the Humanities Department of the Open University of the Netherlands organizes the international

⚡️NEW READING TIP:
"Arguing from Cognitive Science of Religion"

by VU Philosopher Hans Van Eyghen, based on his PhD research as part of the project 'Science Beyond Scientism'.

This book considers whether recent theories from Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) undermine the epistemic status of religious belief. After introducing the key theories in the growing area of CSR, Hans Van Eyghen explores some of the epistemic questions surrounding CSR, including: Is CSR incompatible with the truth of religious belief? How might CSR show that religious belief is unreliably formed? And, finally, does CSR undermine the justification of religious belief by religious experiences? In addressing these questions, he demonstrates how CSR does not undermine the epistemic bases for religious belief.

This book offers a clear and concise overview of the current state of cognitive science of religion and will be of particular interest to scholars working in philosophy and epistemology of religion.

For more information and to buy the book:
https://www.bloomsbury.com/(S(unsntajeqssuw255bd4jdu3k))/us/arguing-from-cognitive-science-of-religion-9781350100305/

From VU Philosopher Chris Ranalli, enjoy!

Corona epistemology

You are going for a walk, and you see someone sneeze. Are you justified in believing 'that person has corona virus'? Well, disjunctivism about sneezing-experiences says "yes!" Some sneezes are manifestations of corona virus symptoms, while others are mere appearances of such symptoms (e.g., a cold or allergies). In those cases where the sneezes are manifestations of corona virus symptoms, call them corona-sneezes, you get immediate justification to believe: that person has corona virus. In other cases, your fallible capacity to know that "that person has corona virus" from mere appearances of corona-sneezes leads you astray. The good news is that that doesn't undermine the immediate justification you get from the good (...well, bad) cases where you're right! 😄

Some philosophers will disagree. They'll say the indistinguishability of corona-sneezes from cold- and allergy-sneezes means that such experiences can at best give you the same degree of justification for believing 'that person has corona virus' as other beliefs, like 'that person just has allergies'. Your evidence would need to favor 'this person has corona virus' over 'this person just has some allergies', but it doesn't favor one over the other. For you need supplemental information! Disjunctivists reply: no, no, in those cases where you're lead astray, you're not justified in believing as you do. However, you are blameless for the corona misattribution. I mean, such sneezes are good signs of corona virus, so you're not at fault here. 👀

VACANCY

Assistant Professor (tenure track): Ethical Computing
Deadline: May 2, 2020

We seek a new colleague who will collaboratively contribute to research on ethical computing within our department, and will be responsible for teaching courses on related topics in the Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence or Information Sciences education programs. We look for an active researcher able to perform groundbreaking research and to apply this in relevant societal domains.

The requirement "completed a PhD in Computer Science or field relevant to this position" actually refers to philosophy ;)

For more information:

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (TENURE TRACK) ETHICAL COMPUTING - >Working at VU Are you an experienced and passionate Computer Science researcher with a track record in ethical computing, and do you want to contribute and collaborate to shape the future of ethical computing models and applications with an eye on society? Then please...