Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from November, 2013

Cons and cons of closed workshops

In Europe (at least in logic and/or philosophy) the dominant model of a conference involves:
a few invited speakers,some contributed papers (acceptance is usually based on abstracts). Some conferences diverge from this model. Sometimes, there are no invited speakers (e.g. EetN 2013). Sometimes, full contributions are required and reviewed (e.g. EetN 2010, EetN 2011, EetN 2013, TiL XIV). Sometimes, there are no contributed papers (on purpose, I won't give any example) and the only speakers are those who were invited by the organizers. 
On the face of it, closed workshops/conferences are kinda cool: If you're the organizer:You don't have to prepare and distribute your CFP.You don't have to collect and manage the submissions.You don't have to find referees to review the submissions.You don't have to message the contributors with the results.Some of the speakers might later invite you to their closed event.If you're an invited speaker, you might feel a bit bette…

A general audience paper on Lesniewski's Mereology

This material is intended for a general audience. The paper is  forthcoming in European Review (special issue on Logic and Philosophy in Poland). I would like to express my gratitude to Dagfinn Follesdal for his comments.

It's not going to be terribly surprising if phil of math is your thing, but for an exposition it's almost bearable (he said proudly).

Also, p. 7 par. 5 from the bottom and fn. 13 give you an example of what logician's revenge looks like (and how harmless it is).

[EDIT: Thanks to Paweł Pawłowski for his correction.]
[EDIT 2: Thanks to Jack MacIntosh (this one, not this one) for his comments and a pointer to Lowe's paper.]