Samuel

Philosophers are generally more squeamish about necessity than possibility. But why?! My new paper, forthcoming in JAPA, investigates philpapers.org/rec/KIMTPB-5

I have a new paper out about modality, inspired by Jess Leech's recent book (global.oup.com/academic/produ…), in which I explore connections between duality of the modal operators, relative modality, and modal (anti) realism. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

Come and work with us! Our @Ethics_of_Doubt project is advertising a two year research fellowship, details: jobs.soton.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?r…

We are delighted to welcome two new lecturers this academic year. Umut Baysan (metaphysics, philosophy of mind, metaethics) will join us this September, and Samuel Kimpton-Nye (metaphysics, philosophy of science, @KimptonNye) will join us in January. Welcome Umut and Sam!

Science is more of an art than a science.

I’ll be talking at a workshop on Jessica Leech’s “Thinking of Necessity” in December. Sign up and details here: eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%…

Here's another book you really don't need to buy -- because it's Open Access! @StAndrewsPhil @ArchePhilosophy

@WillSharp55 Awesome! Congrats Will!

*Hot off the press* My contribution to the conversation on how color ontology interacts with contemporary thinking on neural representation. Colors are not, I argue, relations between subjects, viewing circumstances, and surfaces: academic.oup.com/analysis/advan…

@nonoumenon I think it takes non-Humean sympathies to deny these possibilities.

@nonoumenon If there are no necessary connections then maybe there could be a world in which, e.g., the gravitational constant is different but matter nonetheless coalesceses just as it does in the actual world, or it doesn’t coalesce but we still get life, etc.?

Can Humeans simply reject fine tuning arguments on the grounds that different values of constants or whatever could indeed give rise to life?

@ahrenbach Yes, sure!

@KimptonNye Can I see a draft when ready?

Just writing up a paper presenting a whole new modal anti-realist programme, no biggie.

@KennethLPearce @ShamikDasgupta1 Wow, sounds great! I look forward to reading this.

My main rationalist interlocutors are ibn Sina, Spinoza, Leibniz, and @ShamikDasgupta1. (I hope Shamik appreciates the company in which I've placed him!) This is a 'straight' metaphysics paper, but with clear connections to both my historical work & my phil of rel work. /END

I've just heard that my paper, "Metaphysical Rationalism Requires Grounding Indeterminism" has been accepted for publication in Journal of @apaphilosophy! It will be published open access thanks to @vivalibraries. Summary below. /1

Beliefs about possibility are no more easily justified than beliefs about necessity. They are probably *harder* to justify. So philosophy has been on the wrong track for hundreds of years, with odd consequences. Now published online and open access: cambridge.org/core/journals/…

@elliotcarter85 I think this is very much in the vicinity! I agree that the argument I wrote above has strong PSR vibes.

@KimptonNye Is this a fair paraphrase? ‘If things could have been different, then there’s no reason they are the way they actually are. But there is a reason, so things couldn’t have been different.’ I don’t think I feel the pull towards either premise

If there are other possible worlds it is arbitrary that *this* world is actual. It is not arbitrary that this world is actual. Therefore, there are no other possible worlds and everything is necessary.

@MikeBenchCapon Yeah interesting! But is that the same thing? I’m not so sure 🤔

@Disagreeable_I @petemandik Maybe if it is arbitrary that this world is actual, then every particular matter of fact is arbitrary. This is worse than just my location being arbitrary (maybe!). Though of course if my argument is right then nothing is arbitrary not even where we are located at a time!

@KimptonNye @petemandik I don't see the disanalogy. That you can talk to other people and so know yours isn't the only PoV, but we can't talk to people in ither worlds? Seems a bit weak. I think purely indexical facts don't really need explanations, but that doesn't really make them arbitrary.

@Disagreeable_I @petemandik E.g. maybe some arbitrariness is ok like where I am, but we’ve gotta draw the line somewhere!

@Disagreeable_I @petemandik I suppose I’m trying to say that there is a relevant disanalogy here so that I can deny Pete’s p2 but keep mine.