first experimental philosophy job listing?

I just stumbled upon this job listing at CalTech for the upcoming year, and was very pleased to see that they were looking for "Any area of philosophy informed by the empirical or mathematical sciences (e.g., philosophy of science, philosophy of psychology, empirical ethics, political philosophy, experimental philosophy). "  Is this the first job ad to officially & explicitly list experimental philosophy as a possible part of the AOS?

Comments

[Bryan]

I think calling this an "experimental philosophy job listing" is pretty wishful thinking. CalTech is after a philosopher informed by science -- and experimental philosophy hardly has a monopoly over that.

As Greg at Obscure and Confused Ideas has recently pointed out, there is more than one way to commit an armchair to flames. Indeed, Philosophers of Science have been at it for at least 100 years. I find it strange that X-Phi so often seems to count itself among the very inventors of scientific philosophy.

That said, it's also good to see X-Phi finally appear in a job listing as a desirable research approach.

[Justin Sytsma]

That is a fine hair to split. As experimental philosophy is explicitly listed, it seems that it is straightforwardly an experimental philosophy job listing. It is, of course, not *just* an experimental philosophy job listing; but, I don't see how Jonathan could be construed as claiming that it was.

[doris]

Caltech has been intermittently pondering making an appointment of that sort since at least 2000. They have interviewed numerous broadly experimental types, and have not made an appointment. It will be interesting see what develops. --Doris

[jonathan weinberg]

"I find it strange that X-Phi so often seems to count itself among the very inventors of scientific philosophy."

Huh? I don't see how that claim about x-phi is even vaguely true.

[Dustin]

"'I find it strange that X-Phi so often seems to count itself among the very inventors of scientific philosophy.'

Huh? I don't see how that claim about x-phi is even vaguely true."

I think it's by now customary to roughly distinguish two kinds of X-phi. (1) Conducting one's own empirical experiments in the course of one's philosophical research (e.g., surveying the folk responses to thought experiments), and (2) drawing on existing empirical work to inform one's philosophical research. It seems to me that X-phiers (somewhat correctly) claim to be the inventors of (1), but do not claim to be the inventors of (2). But surely (2) is what the job advertisement is talking about. So in Jonathan's defense, I also don't see how Bryan's comment, if relevant--that is, if about (2)--is true.

However, in Bryan's defense, given that X-phiers are neither the inventors, nor the unique practitioners of (2), I don't see why one would interpret the job advertisement as an advertisement for X-phi. Indeed, as Bryan suggests, it seems to be just an advertisement for the kind of philosophy that has been practiced my many (most?) analytic philosophers for the past 100+ years--that is, the kind of philosophy that involves (2).

[jonathan weinberg]

Although I think it's important to keep a somewhat broad construal of x-phi (so, e.g., it isn't defined just in terms of doing surveys), I do think that current usage tends to distinguish x-phi from _empirical_ philosophy more generally. Jesse Prinz's contribution to the _Experimental Philosophy_ volume has some nice thoughts on this.

However, I find myself rather flummoxed by this:
"I don't see why one would interpret the job advertisement as an advertisement for X-phi."

Why isn't the fact that the phrase "experimental philosophy" is in the job description a pretty good reason to do so? Indeed, I can hardly think of any better reason. Now, it is _obviously_ not a listing for _just_ experimental philosophy, and just as obviously I was not suggesting that it was. (I did, like, quote the whole ad, didn't I?) It is just as much a listing for philosophy of science & all the other things that are there in the text & indeed many other areas that would fall under that rubric that were not specifically enumerated (e.g., philosophy of physics). But it seems to me still noteworthy that x-phi _was_ specifically enumerated as a way of satisfying the AOS -- that it is a job listing, as I said in the main post, that "officially and explicitly lists x-phi as a possible part of the AOS."

I mean, if you were tallying up, say, all the epistemology job listings in an issue of the JFP, you would _of course_ count jobs that listed epistemology disjunctively with other things. A job listing that says "AOS: epistemology, political philosophy, or ethics" is an epistemology job listing; and it is, of course, also a political philosophy job listing, and an ethics job listing.

[Dustin]

Wow, I'm so embarrassed. I must have scanned what was in parentheses so fast that I didn't notice it actually said "experimental philosophy"! I thought that your interpretation was based on the fact that it was an advertisement for someone who worked in "philosophy informed by the empirical or mathematical sciences". Looking back, that was incredibly uncharitable of me... I definitely should have thought twice and then looked closer!

My sincere apologies.

[Dustin]

I guess the reason for the "?" in the title was that you were unsure whether there have been *other*, *earlier* advertisements for X-phi---not that you were unsure whether *this* was an advertisement for X-phi.

Man, I'm quick today!

[jonathan weinberg]

Fwiw, Dustin, after your earlier post I made myself reread the ad practically letter-for-letter, for fear that _I_ had made a summer-induced reading performance error! It do happen.