Hey, did you read the last by Cass R. "Separation of powers" Sunstein?
(you probably shouldn't)
Hey, did you read the last by Cass R. "Separation of powers" Sunstein?
(you probably shouldn't)
New w/@scottclifford.bsky.social.
Lots of work uses agree-disagree scales, and a lit review shows these are 1) frequently just measured in one direction (agree = higher trait) and 2) correlated with each other.
This has potentially big issues for conclusions.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Virtually in Ottawa in a couple of weeks!
www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/philmod-ta...
(a) [ActP [ComP col cavolo [JP [ForceP che [TP Gianni è venuto]]]]]
(b) [ActP [TP Gianni è venuto] Act° [ComP col cavolo [JP [ForceP [tTP]]]]
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
I edited 2 volumes for Frontiers back in 2021 - before I knew better. Never again - it was challenging to get them to adhere to their own ethics guidelines & the “review” system is set up to avoid rejection as much as possible.
13.12.2025 07:38 — 👍 2 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0It’s part of a general pattern of automated harassment, driven by a strategy designed for maximising APC profit. It’s not a hitch, it’s the predictable outcome of Frontier’s business model (not so different from mdpi or other predatory journals, which also regularly send me invitations of this sort)
12.12.2025 15:04 — 👍 5 🔁 1 💬 1 📌 1As academics, we owe it to our community not only not to submit to these journals, but also to treat their outputs as what they are (predatory trash, with occasional good work caught in the net) when reviewing CVs, tenure applications,etc. until they either go bankrupt or change their predatory ways
10.12.2025 22:32 — 👍 5 🔁 1 💬 1 📌 0
@frontiersin.bsky.social is a predatory publisher, and not an acceptable venue to publish in.
For all those who still think the opposite, here’s an invitation to edit an issue of their earth science journal (I’m a philosopher), with an equally mind-boggling explanation.
This is genuinely not ironic?
07.12.2025 00:39 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
Acabamos de sacar un libro blanco sobre desacuerdos en contextos digitales, uno de los resultados del proyecto #digi_morals financiado por #fundacionBBVA
Resultado de la colaboración entre tres ámbitos: la filosofía, la comunicación y la ciencia política
👇👇🎉🎉📣
e-archivo.uc3m.es/entities/pub...
Talking about variation in philosophical intuitions in philosophy bites
02.11.2025 21:38 — 👍 17 🔁 3 💬 2 📌 0
Togo lizards prefer “pizza Quattro Formaggi”.
Feeling inspired by this ig Nobel prize winning study onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
Interpreting Human and Artificial Minds Workshop WHEN SUNDAY NOVEMBER 09, 2025 10:00 - 18:00 REGISTER ONLINE SPEAKERS M R. X. DENTITH (BEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY IN ZHUHAI) "DO CONSPIRACY THEORIST BELIEVE THEIR CONSPIRACY THEORIES?" SIMON GOLDSTEIN (UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG) "WHAT DOES CHATGPT WANT? AN INTERPRETATIONIST GUIDE NERI MARSILI (UNIVERSITY OF TURIN) "THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF HIDING: ANONYMOUS TESTIMONY IN ONLINE SPACES" WHERE ROOM 109, LEE SHAU KEE HUMANITIES, BUILDING 3, PEKING UNIVERSITY 李兆基人文学苑3号楼，109 WU QIANTONG (CAS) "PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AI CONSCIOUSNESS"
‼️Next month: Great workshop in Beijing on AI and online communication 👇👇
21.10.2025 10:10 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
For those who might be interested: I have a new paper forthcoming in Erkenntnis. It's about whether linguistic data on hedging support the popular knowledge norm of assertion (spoiler: it's not so clear that they do).
philpapers.org/rec/MOREHA-6
At the 11th SEFA in Sevilla, Neri Marsili (@narsimarsi.bsky.social) speaks on:
“Posting and Reposting: Investigating Reputation, Trust, and Deniability in Online Communication”
This frog kills fascists
06.10.2025 07:26 — 👍 6 🔁 3 💬 1 📌 0
👋 Os pedimos un favor: si podéis dedicar 2 minutos a esta brevísima encuesta sobre tortillas 🥚, ayudaréis a nuestro colega @narsimarsi.bsky.social a empujar un poquito más las fronteras del conocimiento humano 🚀:
universityofgraz.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_...
Takes the fun out but here it is!
academic.oup.com/mind/advance...
Just published in *Mind*:
14.09.2025 04:34 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
Book resubmitted
Manuscript: 72 pages
Referee report + replies: 38 pages
🥵
But then, it’s the “style” section..
23.08.2025 23:11 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0That digression on the Met exhibition is sooo weird
23.08.2025 23:10 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
El debate que divide a España:
🥔 Tortilla: ¿Con cebolla o sin cebolla? 🧅
Desde la UNED queremos resolverlo con DATOS.
📊 Solo 2 min. Pásasela a tus padres, tu cuñado, tu vecina.
tinyurl.com/mt6e6mbh
El debate que divide a España:
🥔 Tortilla: ¿Con cebolla o sin cebolla? 🧅
Desde la UNED queremos resolverlo con DATOS.
📊 Solo 2 min. Pásasela a tus padres, tu cuñado, tu vecina.
tinyurl.com/mt6e6mbh
Community Notes were never going to replace fact checking. It could offer something else, something complementary.
So far it does not look like it is offering much. Saying that it is a new system still being tested is simply not good enough when you are Meta.
www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...
