Andrew Buskell

@akcay.theoretical.bio @rmcelreath.bsky.social @juemos.bsky.social @nathannunn.bsky.social @zhgarfield.com @bjornlindstrom.bsky.social @patrickesavage.bsky.social @andrewbuskell.bsky.social @helenamiton.bsky.social @simongreenhill.bsky.social @uchiyama.bsky.social @lrendell.bsky.social

In the archive, mourning experiences I will never have:

"Dear Mr. Grice,

I apologize for the appearance of this paper. It was lost in the streets of Berkeley for several hours, during which time it was apparently run over by some sort of vehicle."

(Sadly, the paper was not included)

It's out at last! Check it out!

Clearly I cannot cite (Anon, m.s.), right?!

Folks, I'm in a quandary. Last year I reviewed a paper that was great, but had some problems. I recommended revisions. It seems clear, however, that it was rejected.

I want to use some ideas and cite the draft. I have attempted to track down the paper and the author with no luck. What do I do?

I'm an alum!

📣📣📣

Applications for the 2025 Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) are now open!!

Are you interested in intelligence, mind, and cognition in all its forms? Early-career scholars from any discipline—and storytellers in any medium—are encouraged to apply!

More info: disi.org

Wait a second... you don't think...?

At the end of my 2-year presidency of @philsci.bsky.social I want to thank all PSA members. Serving this incredible community of scholars has been the honour of my life.

ICYMI, my PSA 2024 address on Local knowledges and the right to participate in science is online philsci-archive.pitt.edu/24452/

So glad to see this article finally out! An incredibly useful model to compare to an increasingly popular example of animal cumulative culture.

6. Issues for philosophy of science?

The book raised important questions for me about the use of statistical methods in simulation studies and phylogenetic inference. It strikes me that there is important philosophical work that needs to be done in this area for some more technically-minded folks.

5. Great for teaching

In part because of the clarity, I think this is a great teaching book. I especially liked the (slightly long!) chapter on genocide, data sovereignty, and palaeogenomic inference (Ch. 8 "Seeing Ghosts: From the Excavated Past to the Hauntings of the Present").

4. Clarity of presentation

This is my first Fullwiley book, but I was incredibly impressed by the clarity of presentation on complex and technical issues. The material on ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) was particularly excellent — it'll find its way into my class for sure.

3. Rich ethnographic material

The best part is Fullwiley's ethnography of the Kittles lab, examining how radicalized dynamics play out across all levels of scientific, social, and individual meaning-making — this was powerfully and clearly presented, with some truly engaging actors.

2. New Concepts

Fullwiley's "Sci Non-Fi" (Ch. 7) is an interesting new concept, about how scientific fantasies, or imagination, structure and inspire new research. It's not a big deal, but I didn't find this concept distinct from more familiar science studies ideas like "scientific imaginaries".

1. Structure

The book collects pieces from Fullwiley's decades-long ethnographic work in genomics labs. The introduction provided some overarching framing — but my experience was that the book contained relatively isolated segments (the introduction; Chs. 1–2; 3–6; 7; 8).

The cover of Duana Fullwiley's book "Tabula Raza: Mapping Race and Human Diversity in American Genome Science". The cover depicts the silhouette of a Black woman. Overlaid on top of the silhouette are rows of colored bars, depicting the result of some genetic test.

Another book finished as prep for a new course!

I read Duana Fullwiley's "Tabula Raza: Mapping Race and Human Diversity in American Genome Science"

A tiny book review:

Huh!

I might have to defer to people who work on the semantics/psych of moral language. I would have thought that "shouldn't" and "oughtn't" had the same kind of "force".

Or maybe it's a Britishism? I don't think folks in the US tend to use "ought not"....

Fifth, a tiny gripe.

And I know this is rich coming from a philosopher — but I would have appreciated more pictures. Especially given the emphasis on publicity, I had been expecting more about the displays/images used in science communication, mass marketing, public spaces, and the like.

6/6

Fourth, a wish.

I wished there had been more on the public reception and understanding. Towards the end of the book "celebrity" just seems to be operationalized as "media coverage" — but I didn't know who the public was that was reading, engaging, or seeking more information about aDNA.

5/6

Third, a useful new concept, well-situated in the literature.

This is the idea of "celebrity science" as a science that "exists and evolves under intense public interest and extreme media exposure [...] a celebrity science is the outcome of prolonged publicity." (202)

4/6

Second, what a great intro book.

The chapters are easy to read, driven by interviews and narratives. Most end with connections to big ideas in philosophy, history, and STS (think trading zones, boundary objects, data-driven research, &c.)

A very useful resource for introducing these concepts.

3/6

First, what a great topic.

Maybe it's millennial nostalgia, but it was both fun and fascinating to learn about the genesis of Jurassic park and the outsized influence that book and film had on creating and sustaining interest in "ancient DNA".

2/6

The cover of a book, "Ancient DNA: The Making of a Celebrity Science" by Elizabeth D. Jones. Below the title, a cardboard model of a dinosaur skeleton looks to be walking off the cover, leaving only its hind legs, spine, and tail visible.

As part of prep for a new course, I read Elizabeth D. Jones's "Ancient DNA: The Making of a Celebrity Science."

A tiny book review. 1/6

Please share widely: I am hiring a postdoc in philosophy of AI at the University of Florida! The AOS covers philosophy of AI, mind, science, cognitive science, and ethics, and we also welcome applications from PhDs in related disciplines.

philjobs.org/job/show/27762

Like you straight up pulled an incorrectum.

I guess I was thinking about an older idea from Elizabeth Anderson, that certain kinds of labor (surrogacy, maybe sex work?) value individuals improperly as commodities. I reckoned there might be similar value mismatches in the aesthetic domain.

Ahhh! Interesting, interesting. Not who I expected to pop up here, but a very welcome reference indeed.

Will look forward to reading Black (forthcoming) "Oblique Touches on Aestheticizing Objects"!

Folks working on aesthetics: is there work about "aestheticizing" something that shouldn't be evaluated aesthetically? Like, valuing something as an aesthetic object when it should be evaluated/valued in some other way — like as a religious or political object or practice?

You'd think this would be the easiest thing to do, right? Especially for institutional requirements that hold across the University System. Somewhat boggles the mind.

Ahhh, "Decision Regarding Your Manuscript" email, my old friend.

Which day do I open you? Which day do I risk being ruined...? Which night risks the rapid consumption of all the eggnog in our house?