Dr. Ryan Wasserman, Western Washington University
Friday, Dec. 1, 2023 3:30-5:30 p.m. Location: ILC 302
“The Philosophy of Time Travel”
Abstract: The possibility of time travel raises important philosophical questions about a number of topics, including the nature of time, the direction of causation, and the threat of fatalism. But what exactly is time travel? What would it be for time travel to be possible? And why have so many philosophers rejecting this possibility as logically incoherent? We will explore these and other questions as we delve into the fascinating philosophy of time travel.
Saturday, Dec. 2, 2023 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Location: ILC 302
“Counterfactuals under Determinism”
Abstract: If determinism is true, then the standard account of counterfactual implies that the past or the laws of nature would have been different, had I snapped my fingers just now. Since that is absurd, the standard account is mistaken. In this talk, I will defend the premises of this argument and then explore how the standard account might be adjusted in order to get around this problem.
Dr. Aleta Quinn, University of Idaho
Wednesday, November 15, 2023 4:30-6:30p.m. Location: Multipurpose Building Room 118
“Objectivity and Community Science”
Community science (or citizen science, participatory science) refers to participation of the general public in science as researchers. Natural scientists broadly celebrate the potential of community science to generate data at previously undreamed of scale (and at little cost). However, natural scientists have worried about the quality of research conducted by participants who lack scientific training, and question the objectivity of contributors who may be driven by value-laden goals. In this talk I analyze these worries, linking to philosophical models of objectivity and the appropriate relationship between science and social values.
Dr. Shieva Kleinschmidt, USC
Friday, April 21, 2023 3:30-5:30 Location: ILC 204
Can atheists pray to God? And if they can, can they ever do it rationally? I’ll argue atheists can! Sometimes we can rationally direct communication to someone even when we disbelieve they exist – e.g., calling out to a rescuer even though you think there isn’t anyone else in the vicinity. Similarly, an atheist can rationally direct communication to God even while disbelieving they exist. There are complications with this – like whether these atheists thereby think God might exist, and whether that’s rationally incompatible with believing God doesn’t exist. I’ll respond to that worry and show that this model shows that atheistic prayer is on a par with theistic prayer in many more ways than one might expect.
Saturday, April 22, 2023 11:00-1:00 Location: ILC 204
I will present and motivate a new form of plenitude, called “Decompositional Plenitude”. Usually, when we think about how things divide into parts, we think that if an object is completely made of some parts, then any part of that object overlaps with those parts. For instance, since a table is completely made of its two halves, then any bit of the table (like a random one of its atoms, or one of the table’s legs, etc.) must overlap with at least one of those halves. But… I’m going to deny this! This view opens new options for the sort of metaphysics we may endorse in a wide range of areas, allowing us to avoid arbitrariness in many cases, and also giving us an option to capture wider variety in the fundamental constituents of our world.
Dr. Michael Huemer – University of Colorado-Boulder
“A Proof of Reincarnation”
Abstract: If time is infinite in both directions, and if persons could only live once in all of time, then the probability that I would be alive now would be zero. But I am alive now. Therefore, either time is finite, or persons can live more than once. I elaborate and defend this argument, then discuss its implications.
- Date: Friday, November 11, 2022 3:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
- Location: ILC204
“Virtue and Vice Among the Infinite”
Abstract: When is an infinite series impossible? Three wrong answers: (a) There can be a potential infinity but not an actual infinity; (b) an infinite series cannot be completed by successive addition; (c) there cannot be an endless series in which each member depends upon the following member. Correct answer: An infinite series is impossible when it requires the instantiation of an infinite intensive magnitude. This answer, unlike the three previous answers, accommodates intuitive examples of vicious and benign infinite series.
- Date: Saturday, November 12, 2022 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
- Location: ILC204
Dr. Joshua Spencer – University of Milwaukee-Wisconsin
“Divorce ‘n One’s Self”
- Date: Friday, November 4, 2022 3:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
- Location: ILC 301
My parents were separated around the time I was born and divorced shortly thereafter. I lived in poverty with my mom. It seems clear to me that I would have been a very different person if I had grown up with my dad instead of my mom. And yet it still would have been me who grew up with my dad. After all, I am the one who would have been different. But how could I have still been me and yet have been a different person? In this paper, I formalize these ideas into a puzzle. In order to answer the above question and solve the puzzle, I develop a novel theory of the self. The theory I develop here will have significant further philosophical implications about the essence and composition of one’s self.
- Date: Saturday, November 5, 2022 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
- Location: ILC 301
The Ship of Theseus was originally constructed of planks B1 … B100. But it could have been originally constructed of C1, B2 … B100. And if it had been originally constructed of C1, B2 … B100, then it could have been originally constructed of C1, C2, B3 … B100. And so on. But the Ship of Theseus could not have been originally constructed from C1 … C100. This is “Chisholm’s Paradox”. In this paper, I present a solution to the paradox according to which some of the conditional modal propositions in the Paradox are metaphysically indeterminate. But that metaphysical indeterminacy must be rooted in something. I propose that the metaphysical indeterminacy is rooted in vague essences.
Dr. Maegan Fairchild – University of Michigan
Date: Friday, February 26, 2022 3:30-5:00 p.m.
TikTok: Algorithms and Authenticity
Like many other feed-based social media apps, TikTok relies centrally on a recommendation algorithm: a system that generates a personalized “For You” page, based on each user’s engagement patterns. We’ve got many reasons to be worried about the political and epistemic effects of (often opaque) recommendation engines. However, in this talk I suggest that despite these risks, algorithmic feeds might be uniquely valuable for informing philosophical questions about social identities, authenticity, and self-discovery. I take TikTok’s “For You” page — and the ways that users relate to it — as a case study for exploring some of these questions. (Disclaimer: I am entirely too old for TikTok.)
Date: Saturday, February 27, 2022 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Should it be a constraint on metaphysical theories that we can believe them? I’ll suggest that it needn’t be; that “incredible” theories might nonetheless be serious contenders. I’ll take as my foil Lewis’ Maxim of Honesty: you ought not defend a theory that you yourself cannot believe. On the face of it, the Maxim functions like a kind of ‘common sense’ constraint on metaphysics, but gives belief a radically different role in theory choice than other more familiar Moorean appeals. In this talk I explore three varieties of incredible metaphysics, and argue that even Lewis’ minimal constraint oversteps. Along the way, I hope to cast some light on the vexed relationship between “ordinary belief” and metaphysical theorizing.
Dr. Heather Battaly – University of Connecticut
“Closed-mindedness and Arrogance”
Friday, February 21, 2020, 3:30-5:15 p.m. ILC Room 203
Are closed-mindedness and arrogance the same thing? Or, are they different things that are usually found together but sometimes come apart? Here, I propose analyses of closed-mindedness and arrogance that allow them to come apart, while also explaining why they are so often found together. Section I identifies closed-mindedness with being unwilling to engage seriously with intellectual options or unwilling to revise one’s beliefs. Section II identifies arrogance with under-owning one’s cognitive shortcomings and over-owning one’s cognitive strengths. Section III focuses on a sub-set of cases in which closed-mindedness and arrogance come apart. Examples include academics, who engage with flat-earthers, and activists, who engage with white supremacists, while being unwilling to revise their own beliefs that the earth is round and that people are people. The final section explains why we should nevertheless expect closed-mindedness and arrogance to be found together.
“Quitting, Procrastinating, and Slacking Off”
Saturday, February 22, 2020, 11:00-12:45 p.m. ILC Room 203
This chapter focuses on the traits of quitting, procrastinating, and slacking off, which are different ways to lack the trait of intellectual perseverance. The first section draws on recent work in virtue epistemology to provide an account of intellectual perseverance. It distinguishes between the trait of intellectual perseverance and the virtue that goes by the same name, arguing that the trait of intellectual perseverance is not a virtue when one has it to excess—roughly, when one doesn’t know when to quit. Sections II through IV propose working definitions of the traits of quitting, procrastinating, and slacking off, as deficiencies of, or ways of lacking, the trait of intellectual perseverance. I examine why these traits are intellectual vices when they are, while leaving open the possibility that they sometimes fail to be intellectual vices and might even be intellectual virtues.