In the wake of the resounding success of our weekly most underrated philosopher post (featured every Monday), we thought it would be a good moment to start a new weekly blog post on Fridays: the most overrated philosopher of the week. Here are the ground rules: 1) Must be employed in a Leiter WORLD Top 50 department; 2) he (yes!) must have an impeccable Oxbridge or Ivy pedigree; 3) must be constantly recycling the same point over and over again; 4A) must confidently speak of "naturalism" without ever having struggled with empirical data; and/or 4B) must confidently inhabit the (affine) space of reasons; and/or 4C) is a "philosopher of science" on the basis of knowing how to manipulate Bayes' rule; and/or 4D) thinks mereology is "an improvement" over set-theory; 5A) dismisses unread rival positions with a sneer (e.g., "thin," "superficial," "confused," "unintelligible"); 5B) considers his views as "fundamental" or "ultimate"'. Nominations, including self-nominations, are now open.
This week's winner is:
Recent Comments