I uploaded a discussion under Value Theory but cannot find it.  Does it take time for discussions to show up?  Am I looking in the wrong place for it?  Has it been rejected for some reason?  An inquiring mind wants to know.  Thanks.

at http://philpapers.org/s/iris%20murdoch the page is headed 
'Works by Iris Murdoch'


but the first item is a paper by Richard Moran.

Why is this?

Confession of interest: I noticed this because a paper of mine responds to Moran on this point, and I am curious as why Moran's paper has the special prominence accorded to 'works by iris murdoch' when no other contribution in commentary is visible on that page.

The PhilPapers team is pleased to announce the launch of PhilEvents, a comprehensive calendar of events in philosophy worldwide. Try it out! 
As always, we welcome any form of feedback. Please report any bugs and send your suggestions using our contact form on PhilEvents. 

Which is the correct forum to propose a new category?


When I was about to begin to categorize a new papers for my leaf, I could see many paper that could be in a proper category, but that categoy does not exist. And I would like to propose a new category.

Thanks!

Dear members,

I have compiled my views on various issues such as Philosophy of life, Meaning of life, Purpose of life etc . I have uploaded them at following URL,

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

http://www.angelfire.com/ex/bjgupta/Booklet.htm

I would appriciate your review and feedback.

Regards,

(B. J. Gupta)

The PhilPapers team is pleased to announce a new online database of job ads in philosophy: PhilJobs. The database is to cover jobs in philosophy of all types from all over the world. It is searchable in many different ways (including AOS and geographic parameters).  Search parameters can be saved and can be used to generate email alerts.  Ads from PhilJobs will soon start appearing in PhilPapers' content alerts and certain sections of the site.  Posting and viewing ads on PhilJobs is free.  David Chalmers has more details on the project here.

If you are advertising a job in philosophy, we encourage you to submit the advertisement to PhilJobs.  If you are seeking a job in philosophy, we encourage you to search for jobs on the site.  Any feedback would be welcome, either through the feedback form on the site or through posting on the PhilJobs discussion forum.

Hi!

I've lately noticed that a number of papers by professional authors have not been displayed as such. The problem is not that these are the only papers by these authors - rather, they have several papers accepted qua professional authors, but some other papers by the same authors are not displayed as having been written by professional authors. For one example (for the sake of privacy, I will not menton any names here), there is a professor who has an article accepted as professionally written, but his reply to a critic against that article in the same journal and issue is not shown as being written by a professional author. This is clearly inconsistent. So: what, if anything, can be done about this?

//Olof

I've now been doing some sub-sub-sub-editing on vagueness for a while, and there is one main categorization difficulty I keep encountering: This is entries for the "edited volumes" on a subject with contributions by many individuals and for many individual subcategories.

I have so far put these into the "miscalleneous" categories. The alternative seemed to be putting them in each and every sub-category or couple of sub-categories for which they contain a paper, which can easily be up to fourteen. Neither seems quite right.

Do we have a policy of not listing the volumes but only the individual papers, which I missed? If not is there any policy for classifying edited volumes, and what is it? And if there is no policy, should there be one and if yes, what should it be?

Thanks.
Susanne

It seems that if a non-pro starts a new thread, and the post is accepted, he/she should be able to post in that thread thereafter without moderation. The non-pro's reply is on the very same topic as his/her already accepted OP (original post). Besides the fact that he/she must have some grasp of the topic, the author of the OP is already invested in the discussion, so I seriously doubt you run the risk of the him/her trolling (posting a bunch of curse words, for example) or doing something else with a bad intention. And if the intention is good, the OP author deserves a reply.

Given that OP authors often reply in their own threads a bunch, the idea has high utility (for moderators as well).

Thank you,
Nathan

There are three cases of duplication of my papers. How can I get rid of a duplication?

(Wiggens on Identity
Three Kinds of Classes
Plantinga on the Contingently Possible)

Hugh

Hi,

I have just discovered that SEP entries have links to PhilPapers bibliographies such as this one

http://philpapers.org/sep/logic-conditionals/

Is it possible to import these bibliographies into PhilPapers? also it would be very useful from an editors perspective if we could categorize these bibliographies en masse.

Lee

Hi,

I'm new at this and am having some troubles. I'm trying to export a search result from philpapers to an ris file so I can import it into Mendeley. I select Reference Manager from the Export this Page box, change the number to 444 (that's how many results I had), but when I export it I get the file 'asearch.pl'. What is a pl file? In fact, I get this when I try to export it to other file types as well.

Is changing the file extension to ris safe? Will I lose any information this way? Thanks for the help.

Having an article in one of the monitored journals ought to be enough for professional status. It shouldn't have to be one on the 'most popular' list.

If PhilPapers had been around last century, Saul Kripke's pathbreaking papers in modal logic would have been hidden by the current criteria until well into the Sixties, for all his early publications were in the Journal of Symbolic Logic, which is not on the 'most popular' list. Surely this is a reductio ad absurdum of the current criteria.

A separate suggestion: make the 'professional authors only' box unticked by default. As far as I can tell, this wouldn't clog the default listings too much, and people can always tick it. (I suspect many people see it ticked and leave it ticked out of inertia without realizing, or thinking much about, what they might be missing out on.)

The search
@authors swinburne
brings 95 hits.
But on
http://philpapers.org/s/Richard%20Swinburne
there are 121 entries. How is that possible? How can I search the authors field?
Daniel

I tried to upload bibtex files with non-ascii characters in the field 'author' as ISO-8859-1 and as UTF-8. In both cases they were interpreted incorrectly. Which encoding can one use?
Daniel

I would like to suggest an additional method of categorization for the papers on this archive: every paper can be tagged with a university affiliation i.e. the university to which the author was affiliated at the time of publication.

If this happens, users can be presented with a list of universities such that clicking on a particular university gives a list of papers published from that university, grouped by author. So, for example, I could click on "University of Pittsburgh" and see a list of papers published from UPitt, grouped by author. Then, I could compare this list, side by side, with a list of papers published from UPitt's neighbour, Carnegie Mellon University, and note the radical differences in style, content, method, etc, etc.

At a higher level, universities could be grouped under higher levels of categorization - by country, for example. Then I would be able to compare, side by side, philosophical papers published by American authors vs. philosophical papers published by ... (read more)

Hi,

I've just started up as editor for the Self-Consciousness leaf and, before I really get started, thought I'd ask for advice on how the category should be structured. In particular, I note that there are already two categories - 'Self-Consciousness in Psychology' and 'Animal Self-Consciousness'  (both falling under Philosophy of Cognitive Science) - that cover some very closely related ground. My question is what ought the relationship be between these and the general Self-Consciousness category (falling under Philosophy of Mind)? My own preference would be for these two to sub-categories of Self-Consciousness (is it possible to do this whilst also keeping them in Philosophy of Cog Sci?). It seems to me that there is also scope for some further sub-categories within Self-Consciousness, e.g. Self-consciousness and agency, apperception, Immunity to error through misidentification, etc.

Any help greatly appreciated

Best, Joel

Hi all,

I noted that many papers with "truthlikeness" in the title are not categorized under the "Verisimilitude" leaf in General PoS, which would be the right category.

I would suggest to rename this leaf as "Verisimilitude and truthlikeness" or "Verisimilitude, truthlikeness and truth approximation" since the three terms (and surely the first two) are used as synonyms in the relevant literature.

This may help in categorizing at least all truthlikeness-papers.

Thank you for your great work.

Gustavo

Today marks PhilPapers' second anniversary. This is a good occasion to review our progress, and to announce a new project which has just been awarded JISC funding.

PhilPapers' growth

Today PhilPapers receives about 300,000 visitors per month, or 10,000 per day. There are over 20,000 registered PhilPapers users. About 60% of registered users are faculty members or graduate students in a philosophy department.

It is not just the user base that has grown phenomenally in two years. The index of entries has grown from about 180,000 items to over 330,000 items, thanks in good part to the increasing collaboration of publishers.

Our tests indicate that our coverage of English-language professional publications in philosophy is ahead of commercial indices by many measures.  We have also received over 10,000 submissions directly from users. Those submissions, together with website harvesting and a rich
set of online tools for researchers, have made PhilPapers a unique resource for keeping up with the ... (read more)