Seed Media Group

Search this blog

Profile

Janet D. Stemwedel (whose nom de blog is Dr. Free-Ride) is an assistant professor of philosophy at San Jose State University. Before becoming a philosopher, she earned a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. Email her at dr.freeride@gmail.com.

Brain-Friendly Giftables

Having a family and an academic career

Adoptic

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive

Give to DonorsChoose
Details about our 2007 drive here
Together we raised $34,082.34 in 2006.
October 2007 raised $72,920 THANK YOU!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Where I'm coming from

Chemistry

Physics, Astronomy

Biology

Paleontology

Ecology

Math, Logic, Statistics

Psychology, Neuroscience

Geoscience

Engineering, Computer Science

Information, Technology

Medicos

Slaving in the lab

Science meets real life

Science and skepticism

Science meets art, literature, culture

Science and ethics

History of Science

Philosophy Blogs

Other Academic Blogs

Non-Academic Blogs I Like

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

Other Information

Add Adventures in Ethics and Science to your Technorati Favorites!

Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!

« Help Kay Weber continue to pursue her case against Fermilab. | Main | What kind of deception of human subjects is acceptable? »

Silly hypothesis, meet snarky retort.

Category: Passing thoughtsPhilosophy
Posted on: April 8, 2008 11:05 PM, by Janet D. Stemwedel

In case those readers trained in analytic philosophy managed to miss it, this comment at A Philosophy Job Market Blog gave me the giggles while striking me as an entirely appropriate response (given the audience) to a lazy reliance on speculative evolutionary psychology to justify the status quo (in this case, the lopsided gender split of folks pursuing philosophy in their studies and as a career). The italicized portion is quoted from the earlier (ev-psych-loving) commenter:

Maybe, just maybe, philosophy is something "inherently more valuable" to men qua hunters

Because chasing down those non-existent unicorns painted to look like zebras in fake barn country required the ability to discern whether one was a brain in the vat before throwing a spear?

Anonymous commenter, I think I love you.

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: )

Comments

Amusing, but the comment it was in response to was also an anonymous commentator...

Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | April 8, 2008 11:47 PM

My default assumption is that when some highly underdetermined speculative analysis just happens to indicate that the status quo of gender or race privilege is, like, totally a consequence of, like, biology and stuff, it ain't likely to be a coincidence.

Posted by: PhysioProf | April 9, 2008 12:11 AM

This made me laugh so loud it scared the cats. Thanks, I needed that!

Posted by: a little night musing | April 12, 2008 10:38 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Readers' Picks

Search All Blogs

Top Science Stories

powered by SEED - seedmagazine.com