tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post2762775714406063829..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: What Should Editors Ask of Referees?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-48504266497147371532020-11-21T08:28:46.804-05:002020-11-21T08:28:46.804-05:00Ha, very good!Ha, very good!Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-6918595597038450612020-11-21T04:13:18.617-05:002020-11-21T04:13:18.617-05:00Great post. Strongly agree that refs tend to overr...Great post. Strongly agree that refs tend to overrate whether the paper's argument is "successful."<br /><br />I'm reminded of Bosanquet's review of Moore's dissertation; Moore was applying to a fellowship at Trinity College. The great Bosanquet (who??) complained that Moore was defending the existence of mind-independent objects, a dogma already refuted by the German Idealists. Bosanquet wrote:<br /><br />"if [this] had been sent to me for review by ‘Mind’…I should have treated it respectfully as a brilliant essay by a very able writer, but should have endeavoured to point out that its positive stand-point and consequently its treatment of the subject were hopelessly inadequate.” <br /><br />As it turns out, a version of the paper did make it into Mind -- as "The Nature of Judgement."<br /><br />(Source: the intro of Hurka's amazing British Ethical Theorists.)Daniel Munozhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10308920642524596609noreply@blogger.com