2013-11-04
|
Open Access in Philosophy
|
Daniel von WachterInternational Academy of Philosophy
|
I have just changed my recommendations here a little bit, because I found that the search engines OAIster and BASE do not find PhilPapers entries. Therefore I wrote that it has advantages to upload to an OAI-compatible repository and then in the Philpapers entry add a link to it. PhilPapers tracks many repositories. Daniel
|
2013-11-04
|
Open Access in Philosophy
|
Emmanuel RensUniversity of Geneva
|
Ok got it! Everytime we can make Habermas lie we have to.
|
2013-12-17
|
Open Access in Philosophy
|
David BourgetUniversity of Western Ontario
|
Thanks for making this helpful page. You might want to mention that uploading your papers to PhilPapers has advantages. Here are some that come to mind: 1. This enables PhilPapers to count all your downloads in its statistics, which may influence search rankings in the future. 2. This enables us to better index your papers by accessing the full text (which we may not always be able to do with externally hosted papers). 3. If you upload to PhilPapers, you have only one site to worry about, not two or three. (We do index institutional repositories, but we can't extract all information required for optimal indexing from them; see our FAQ). You can even embed your PhilPapers listing on your personal site. Regarding the disadvantages mentioned, I doubt that other archives link pre-prints with post-prints better. We store all the links together, under a single ID. In contrast, most archives don't know about the post-prints at all. I'm not sure whether or not we're indexed by OAIster and other aggregators. We have an OAI-compliant interface, there is no reason why we shouldn't be indexed (I'm going to look into it). We also have full metadata for Google Scholar indexing.
|
2014-07-20
|
Open Access in Philosophy
|
Emmanuel RensUniversity of Geneva
|
In Truth and justification Habermas seems to believe that philosophical paradigms are as clearly defined and important as paradigms in positive sciences. However the latter are validated by techniques not discourse. Philosophical reality doesn't share the same realm and within it validation processes may well in fact be grounded on communication, but only because there are no other objects of experimentation. Habermas' position shows a coercitive face to his reader having to ratify slogans about linguistic and pragmatic turns, that are coextensive to the works of an academically celebrated group of thinkers. There is no strong evidence however - in spite of what Habermas takes for granted - that for example, the correspondance theory of truth has been diverted by decisive progresses in the philosophical realm. There are surely trends among wealthy authors, but can we really ensure more than that? In such case Habermas should be able to provide at least one philosophical fact (apart from fashion) that the problem of truth has been solved. But all he can invoke are "turns"... In spite of the attempt - directed toward readers with less culture and more common sense - to leave a door open to some kind of pragmatic realism, Habermas remains thus, fondamentally consensualist, and his book an attempt to generate a consensus that, according to his own concept, should have come ahead of theory.
|