The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

  • Applying for two positions in the same dept?

    In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

    Say one department is hiring for two positions. A candidate has AoS's appropriate for both postings and applies to both. Should the candidate worry about one application undercutting the other? Should they avoid making themselves seem too different? My instinct is to say that materials should be tailored to each position and hence should (or could) highlight different dimensions of the same projects, as relevant. Is that right?

    My understanding is that when there are multiple searches in the same department, the search committees usually operate independently of one another. So, although I could be wrong, I wouldn't think one application would undercut the other. But I think the OP's instinct that materials should be tailored to each position is probably right.

    What do readers think?

    6

  • Thoughts on “AI Researchers”?

    In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

    I'd like to hear people's thoughts about AI researchers. I know of a peer-review-accepted paper written by an AI researcher in computer science, and it seems to suggest that automated science is becoming a reality. Could the same thing happen in philosophy? Could AI researchers automate philosophy and replace us? I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this.

    (*Just to clarify, I'm not talking about students cheating, but about professional philosophy)

    Anyone have any thoughts on this?

    7

  • Dealing with incompetent referees?

    In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

    Just got a bizarre referee report. I argued that a popular view — that phi-ing requires N — is false, because S is sufficient for phi-ing, and S doesn't entail N.

    The referee wrote: "This is a straightforward necessity/sufficiency blunder: the claim is that [S] is sufficient for [phi-ing]. How is this in conflict with the [view that N is necessary for phi-ing]? It is just a sufficient condition." This was their main reason for rejection.

    I am just astounded at this level of incompetence. I don't mind referees raising bad objections, but this is just basic logic stuff.

    More practically, what do you do with something like this? Usually after a rejection I add clarification to the paper. But clarifying this particular point feels beyond silly.

    I've heard anecdotally of at least one person complaining to an editor about a referee's silly mistake–but I've never done this and am not sure it's advisable. Also, while it may seem (or be!) silly, for my part I've always found it helpful to "referee-proof" papers by making every argumentative step as explicit as I can. Referees are human, they may read a paper more quickly than they should, and they may get tripped up by simple distinctions that shouldn't. Oftentimes, preventing silly mistakes by referees can just take a sentence to spell a relevant inference out.

    What do readers think?

    18

  • Applying for a TT job at your PhD-granting institution?

    In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

    What's the opinion on applying for a tt job at the same university from where you received your PhD? Can't disclose too much info for obvious reasons, but say it's been a few years and nobody currently at the department focuses on your (relevant) AOS anymore. Pointless still?

    No idea–I've heard that programs can be reticent to "hire one of their own", but I can also imagine circumstances where they might see such a person as the best job candidate.

    Do any readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

    10