Philosophy – Google Scholar Metrics

Brought to my attention by Steve Fuller, and his by Luciano Floridi:

Philosophy – Google Scholar Metrics.

Synthese, which is listed #1, has a special issue on Philosophy of/as Interdisciplinarity coming out soon.

A Net Skeptic’s Conservative Manifesto – Reason.com

Steve Fuller sent me this review of Evgeny Morozov’s latest book:

A Net Skeptic’s Conservative Manifesto – Reason.com.

Of note was the comparison of Morozov with Oakeshott:

It remains unclear just how far Morozov would go to defeat “the cult of efficiency” that he says haunts us. Would he join Oakeshott in insisting that “the onus of proof, to show that the proposed change may be expected to be on the whole beneficial, rests with the would-be innovator”—in other words, applying the precautionary principle to technological change?  Morozov’s solutionism of “erratic appliances” and “technological troublemakers” would certainly constitute a preemptive, precautionary approach to digital regulation, should anyone attempt to apply them.

I haven’t read the book, yet. But this review makes me want to do so. Even if I don’t agree with Morozov’s conclusions — and I’m not saying I don’t or won’t — he seems to be asking some of the right questions.

So, does that mean philosophy is Virginia?

So, does that mean philosophy is Virginia?

Don’t mess with philosophy, either!

Exchange on Holbrook and Briggle’s “Knowing and Acting”, Briggle, Fuller, Holbrook and Lipinska

Here’s an exchange with Adam Briggle, Steve Fuller, and Veronika Lipinska regarding the proactionary and precautionary principles.

Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective

Author Information: Adam Briggle, University of North Texas, adam.briggle@unt.edu; Steve Fuller, University of Warwick, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology, S.W.Fuller@warwick.ac.uk; J. Britt Holbrook, University of North Texas, britt.holbrook@unt.edu; Veronika Lipinska, Lund University, Sweden, SERRC,veronika.lipinska@googlemail.com

Briggle, Adam, Steve Fuller, Britt Holbrook and Veronika Lipinska. 2013. “Exchange on Holbrook and Briggle’s ‘Knowing and Acting’”. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5) 38-44.

The PDF of the article gives specific page numbers. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-Li

Please refer to: Holbrook, J. Britt and Adam Briggle. 2013. “Knowing and acting: The precautionary and proactionary principles in relation to policy making.”Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5): 15-37.

Editor’s Note: The following e-mail exchange on Holbrook and Briggle’s “Knowing and Acting” (published on the SERRC as a pre-print on 16 April 2013) took place from 20 to 22 March 2013. The participants are J. Britt Holbrook, Adam Briggle, Veronika…

View original post 3,531 more words

Knowing and acting: The precautionary and proactionary principles in relation to policy making, J. Britt Holbrook and Adam Briggle

This is a preprint of a paper I’m working on with my colleague Adam Briggle. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective

Author Information: J. Britt Holbrook, Britt.Holbrook@unt.edu, and Adam Briggle, Adam.Briggle@unt.edu, University of North Texas

Holbrook, J. Britt and Adam Briggle. 2013. “Knowing and acting: The precautionary and proactionary principles in relation to policy making.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5): 15-37.

The PDF of the pre-print gives specific page numbers. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-KQ


This essay explores the relationship between knowledge (in the form of scientific risk assessment) and action (in the form of technological innovation) as they come together in policy, which itself is both a kind of knowing and acting. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policymaking process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue…

View original post 9,287 more words