« On the significance of the private history of philosophy journals [GUEST POST Joel Katzav] | Main | A Theorist (Arrow) Does History as a Moral Enterprise, and Therapy »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Filippo Contesi

Thanks, Eric. I agree. There is also sometimes the reverse problem. Sometimes a theory is formulated at such a high level of abstraction that it is difficult to find objections to it. This might lead to lack of criticism of said theory and, perhaps more importantly, lack of research into more fleshed-out theories of the same phenomena (or of proper sub-sets of them)...unless and until one precisely formulates a set of phenomena that the high-level-of-abstraction theory doesn't account for (successfully). The simple objection that a theory doesn't explain the finer details of some phenomena sometimes is considered as not sufficiently forceful to warrant further investigation. This may be an especially prominent issue in philosophy where high level of abstraction or generality is strongly associated with the very nature of the discipline.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad