I just got the offprints for my most recently published article, as it happens a reply to the article mentioned by Brad DeLong last night in his theology post. It’s quite pretty too, since The Philosophical Quarterly put nice covers on their offprints.
This article was interesting from a blogging perspective for a few reasons. First, I got the idea for it from reading blogs. Second, I even cited the relatively well-known blog from which I got the idea. Third, the paper itself grew almost entirely out of some blog entries.
(If you want to see the original blog posts, and see how closely the final paper resembled them, they are here and here. Be warned though, these files are rather large, since I wasn’t using any blogging software at the time, just adding text to a poorly designed HTML file.)
Now as you might see by looking at our sidebar, there are a lot of academics who have blogs. I suspect their numbers will start exploding in the next year or two. Very soon I imagine keeping anything like a comprehensive list of them will be impractical.
But it’s not clear to me from skimming through the list just how many scholar-bloggers use their blogs to advance their scholarship. Very few have posts directly about their research, and fewer still it seems use their blog as a place to try out ideas, or paragraphs, for forthcoming papers.
This isn’t a universal principle. Some of the Conspirators have posts closely related to their research from time to time, as does Lawrence Solum. And the oldest philosophy blog I know of, Wo’s Weblog, is another notable exception. Plus, it’s not always easy for me to tell what is intended as passing commentary and what is intended for scholarly publication, so I might be underestimating how much blogging is intended for scholarly publication. But the general trend seems to not be to use the blogs as a forum for first (or zeroth) drafts of papers.
In a way this is understandable. Blog entries tend to be short and topical, academic papers tend to be long and concerned with more long-term affairs. So I can understand why people would be tempted to keep their two forms of writing separate. (And if you have a pseudonymous blog, keeping your academic work off it may be necessary in order to preserve the disguise.)
But to me that is a waste of a good audience. Not everyone who reads an academic’s blog will be interested in the technical details of his/her work. But some of the audience will be, and some of them may have interesting comments. I’ve learned quite a lot from my commentators about problems with proposals I’ve been making, about alternative solutions I should be considering, and sometimes even about reasons why the project should be abandoned. It’s a lot easier to learn about those two days into a project than it is after two months, or two years, into it.
The upshot of all this is that in my case blogging isn’t interfering with scholarly writing. If anything it is promoting it, which is useful for a pre-tenure academic.
I’d be interested to hear from anyone else who is using their blog this way. Or from anyone who’s made a particular decision to not do so. If I’m right there’s a large potential use for blogs that hasn’t really been tapped into yet.
UPDATE: Norman Geras has a very interersting series on Crimes Against Humanity on his blog, that should be turning into a paper shortly. There’s lots of good stuff there, and I highly recommend reading through it. (I don’t trust Blogger permalinks, so you’ll have to scroll down to find the series - head to the first post headed CAH n for some integer n and track back from there.)
Norman has taken a different approach to mine - he’s serialising a paper on his blog. This is a nice move, because it gives the blog readers a worked out series of ideas (in managable chunks). I’m more inclined to do a brain dump onto the blog and let the readers find their way across, if they care to. As you might have guessed, my way of doing this is less work.
I can’t parse this:
2http://www.instapundit.com/archives/003465.php#003465. Reynolds’s comment wasn’t directly about Bostrom, but
it bore the ancestral of the relation refers to Bostrom’s paper.
“I’d be interested to hear from anyone else who is using their blog this way. Or from anyone who’s made a particular decision to not do so. If I’m right there’s a large potential use for blogs that hasn’t really been tapped into yet.”
I have a couple of papers that are very loosely based on stuff I’d discussed in extended threads on the usenet during the ’90s — doubt I’m unique in this respect. But I’ve also found that online discussion isn’t nearly as helpful as extended emails and old-fashioned conversations with friends and colleagues. A related point: my sense is that the usenet is a somewhat better place for extended discussions on a specific topic or topics, although I don’t think it really lives up to its promise for those who want to get good comments on ongoing academic work. But unlike most blogs, usenet involves conversations in which all users are visible in a logical thread structure, and anyone can start a topic (rather than having to either respond to topics on someone else’s blog, or start your own blog, link to your intended interlocuters, and hope they notice and bother to reply). To make the point more polemical, the usenet panders less to narcissism (although this comes at a deliberative cost). Blog “conversations” seem to be the equivalent of usenet users with ADD on amphetamines. Topics change so rapidly, people lose interest so quickly in older threads, and the actual conversations are hidden on these tedious, painfully linear “comments” popup scripts.
I tend to use my blog as an incubator for new ideas. (I teach philosophy and cultural theory at The New School.) My posts may eventually turn into academic articles or short pieces for the mainstream media. Or, more often than not, they may not go anywhere.
The value of the blog for rehearsing arguments with colleagues depends on how many are reading it. For blogs with a reasonable amount of traffic, you have the benefit of well-informed readers who are not personal acquaintances. As a relatively new blogger, I tend to post an idea and tip off my close colleagues who may have an interest in the topic. Since most of them do not blog, their responses usually come back either through email or in conversation rather than the comments feature in the blog.
I also use the blog as a supplement to courses I’m teaching and to extrend class room discussions.
I would imagine that for some academic bloggers, blogging is a sort of break from their academic work. It’s a chance to be intellectual about topics on which they don’t claim any academic expertise, and which are outside the confines of whatever narrow topic their current research deals with. It’s also a chance to set aside the rigorous thought required by academia and just pontificate ex recta. That’s certainly true of my frequent posts on gay rights.
The potential to use a blog to get feedback on academic work is dependent not only on how many readers you have, but also how many people out there are in your field. Law, political science, and philosophy seem to have built up the critical mass of people to start producing blog-tested work. But to judge from your sidebar, besides myself there are no geographers, one anthropologist, and no environmental scientists (the three disciplines that would be directly interested in my work) in the blogosphere. I have fantasies sometimes about doing a paper at the AAG meeting that would provoke a bunch of geographers into blogging.
Chun, I just meant that Insty referred to something that referred to something that … referred to the Bostrom piece. I couldn’t remember how the thread went (I have a bad feeling it went via FreeRepublic) nor how long it was, hence the obscurantist citation.
I liked Loren’s analogy. I’ve often though attention deficit disorder was a good explanation or two for why I blog. Maybe I was out of the loop, but I don’t recall there being usenet groups in semantics/metaphysics/epistemology (i.e. what I work in). So blogging in these areas is doing something new, not replacing usenet. I suspect there’s an interesting story to be told about the causes and effects of philosophy not going down this road (if it didn’t) in the early 90s, but that’s a story for someone else to tell.
Actually, quite a few bloggers that I read do use their blogs to float research ideas and content. Seb Paquet, Alex Halavais, Jill Walker, Matt Kirschenbaum, AKM Adam all come to mind.
I used mine to talk about both of my NSF grant proposals (though one got spun off to a separate blog).
Warning: I tried to post this in M. Yglesias’ comments but I had browser problems… I react to Matt’s characterizing the argument as ‘goofy-sounding’.
I can hardly agree that a ‘goofy-sounding’ debate has been given legitimacy by Brian Weatherson’s academic needling round the edge of it. Bostrom isn’t any sort of fruitcake, he’s got a textbook published on matters relating to statistical inference and a research fellowship.
The flaws in the simulation argument (as stated by Bostrom) seem to have to do with matters of precise definition which necessarily will remain somewhat fuzzy, rather than substantial holes. In other words, if Bostrom had enough experience constructing watertight definitions in the high analytic style he could still make the argument fly.
Very simply, if 1) DOOM, and 2) unpopularity of simulations, are unlikely, then it’s likely that the vast majority of individuals with access to something like the current level of technology are inside simulations. Where ‘access to technology’ means, for simulated beings, that they should have simulated computers with at most the capability of Pentiums under their simulated control.
Now it’s up to you how you wish to interpret that, in terms of credence functions or induction or indifference principles or probability or whatever. The argument doesn’t have to depend on the precise nature of a human or simulated human’s conscious experience.
I think Thomas’s point here is a fairly good one. Fodor says somewhere that it’s a law that every technical problem has a technical solution. If all I’ve done is given Bostrom a reason to read up on some more stats to tidy up the argument, then it’s reasonable to believe that there is a way to tidy up the argument even in advance of his expositing it. So let me try and make the argument as non-technically as possible.
True, the vast majority of things with experiences broadly like mine are simulated. But we never make judgements from a part of our evidence set when there’s potentially more evidence to use. Most things with experiences like mine don’t have their emotional well-being tied to Red Sox wins and losses. No reason to conclude that how happy I’ll be this October is completely independent of how the Red Sox do, because I know something more about my particular position in the world.
I actually know quite a lot about my position in the world, on reflection. There are particular combinations of experiences I’ve had that I can be just about certain no one else in the universe has had or will have. (If the universe is infinite I can’t be so sure, but if the universe is infinite the sense in which ‘most’ creatures like me are simulations becomes elusive. I doubt there’s a higher cardinality of simulated beings than material beings.) What’s the percentage of creatures with experiences like mine that are simulated, and what’s the percentage that’s material? Bostrom doesn’t know. All he can say is because he doesn’t know, it shouldn’t matter.
What do I say? Well some days I say I do know. I know the material percentage is 100. In that case, I should infer I’m material. This isn’t an argument that I’m material, it’s an argument that Bostrom’s reasoning, plus what I know about myself, doesn’t undermine my confidence that I’m material. There’s no reductio argument against knowledge of your own materiality from simulation considerations.
Other days I might waver. At least for the sake of the argument. But I still don’t feel any force of Bostrom’s argument. Because the reasoning Bostrom presents me massively underdetermines how confident I should be in my own materiality. There’s a big chunk of evidence I have, all the evidence of my actual experiences, that it says, “I don’t know how to account for that. Maybe that’s good evidence you’re human, maybe it’s further evidence you’re a simulation, maybe (although this seems implausible) it’s neutral between the two.” Bostrom says that when we’re stuck like that we plump for option 3. I say (a) that’s inconsistent - that’s the techie geeky part of my argument, and (b) it’s undermotivated. The principle at work here seems to be that when you don’t know what effect some evidence has, it has no effect. Why believe that? (Especially since it is inconsistent.)
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review