I've been telling people about this paper by Rob Koons, defending a grim-reaper based Kalaam cosmological argument, but I didn't realize it was online.
With this idea (grim reapers) being out there has made me curious about some of the on-goings in professional philosophy. Within this particular field, when one comes up with a new (or defends an old) idea--does one send this information to people they know would likely disagree with the idea? What I'm getting at is isn't it not enough to only publish your idea in a philosophical journal, but also to try and send your idea to others within the field that are likely to disagree?
It seems slow to me that one should publish their idea in some philosophical journal to only have a handful that actually read that journal and to then bring forth a critique. I think it's great to have one's idea published, but I think it's even better, for truth's sake, to get intelligent people within the field that are likely to disagree with the idea to read and offer criticisms (if any are found).
Basically, to me, the process of getting published and waiting for someone else with a critique to come (who too gets published) along is a slow process in getting to truth. Though maybe the process of a new idea being published and a critique of said work being published is quicker than I realize?
The link is dead, its too bad because I remember reading the article and finding it interesting. Unfortunately I didn't save a copy. Does anyone know if its still online somewhere?
2 comments:
Thanks for the link.
With this idea (grim reapers) being out there has made me curious about some of the on-goings in professional philosophy. Within this particular field, when one comes up with a new (or defends an old) idea--does one send this information to people they know would likely disagree with the idea? What I'm getting at is isn't it not enough to only publish your idea in a philosophical journal, but also to try and send your idea to others within the field that are likely to disagree?
It seems slow to me that one should publish their idea in some philosophical journal to only have a handful that actually read that journal and to then bring forth a critique. I think it's great to have one's idea published, but I think it's even better, for truth's sake, to get intelligent people within the field that are likely to disagree with the idea to read and offer criticisms (if any are found).
Basically, to me, the process of getting published and waiting for someone else with a critique to come (who too gets published) along is a slow process in getting to truth. Though maybe the process of a new idea being published and a critique of said work being published is quicker than I realize?
The link is dead, its too bad because I remember reading the article and finding it interesting. Unfortunately I didn't save a copy. Does anyone know if its still online somewhere?
Post a Comment