I welcome private and public nominations for my weekly, splendid philosopher of the week post! [Yes, enough folk persuaded me that "most underrated" could cause unintended harms.] Here are the rules: 1. no dead people; 2. no people currently or about to be employed in a Leiter top 50 (or equivalent) department (even thought these are also filled with splendid folk); 3. no former dissertation advisors, or other teachers from graduate school; 4. no former students; 5. No un-tenured junior folk (again accepting emendation); 6a: Excellence in more than one AOS, or 6b: noticeable public impact; 6C Just plain inspiring. (That is I want to recognize interesting philosophers, not just hyperspecialized ones!)
Unless Wittgensteinian, analytic philosophers often get a bit discomforted when faced with criticism of Science. We much prefer to emulate science in various ways (this can range from the adoption of scientific virtues by metaphysicians or the sneaky tactics of Analytic Creationists) or cite copiously from it. This is a shame because one of the crucial tasks of philosophy today is to be critical of science in order to improve it. This improvement can take (at least) two forms: a) by conceptual clarification/engineering/coining help science track the empirical world better; b) make science wiser. Like last week's splendid philosopher this week's, Dan Haybron, is a wonderful exemplar of a philosopher that critically engages with various sciences in order to improve it. Haybron works primarily at the intersection of psychology, economics, political science, and ethics in the suddenly fashionable field of happiness studies. (He has a strong background in methodological issues; see this lovely paper.)
One of my favorite Haybron papers is a much cited article that directed much of the future research that has appeared in subsequent editions of the Journal of Happiness Studies from its origins. [I have to admit I would prefer to write for Curmudgeon Studies! But unlike Haybron I have never touched evil.] A good place to start learning about the field is with Dan's recent (taxonomic) survey article that is not shy about offering substantive criticism of existing research and signalling the way forward. (For a richer introduction see here.)
In recent work he has teamed up with one of my favorite philosophers of economics, Anna Alexandrova. Their paper has already yield a stunning intellectual achievement (see here for an early draft). It beautifully exposes the, perhaps unintentional, "hard parternalism" at the heart of much contemporary welfare economics (even if that is clothed in supposedly market-friendly policies/rhetoric). Their result would not have surprised the young George Stigler back in 1943, but this irony has to be explored some other time.
Recent Comments