brettmullga

I have come to share this view as well.

I am facing similar problems as I've already had one bad experience. Last year, I presented a paper at a conference hosted by a school I was interested in attending (call it university X). After receiving the acceptance, I emailed the POI from university X with my paper, expressed interest in their [low tier] graduate program, and invited the POI to hear my presentation. As I was interested in taking classes from and potentially being advised by this individual, I thought this was a good way to break the ice and demonstrate my competency. The POI responded quickly by thanking me and wishing me luck at the conference; however, they were not interested in my paper and would not attend the conference. I ended up making matters more awkward.

I don't quite recall the particular article/book. I read it in a Phil Science course some time ago. I believe he was engaging Michael Ruse; however, that could be completely mistaken. From what I do remember, Plantinga argues that the eye could not plausibly have evolved piecemeal as it is a complex system. The problem is that there are evolutionary accounts of the origin of the eye that he did not engage. Stylewise, I find much of Plantinga's work unbearably dry, especially his earlier work in metaphysics.

Good: 1. Language, Truth, and Logic by AJ Ayer: While logical positivism is a 'mostly' dead movement and Ayer wasn't the best sport about it, this book captures a powerful mixture of excitement and awe from a group that thought they had solved every problem in philosophy with, more or less, a single move. Though I take issue with much of what Ayer discusses, this book largely pushed me in the Analytic direction. 2. Rational Decisions by Ken Binmore: A brief introduction to game and decision theory from a methodological perspective. It made me reconsider Revealed Preference Theory as not just a bunch of garbage to justify unnecessary mathematics. 3. The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper: I have mixed feelings on this one. I wrote my undergrad thesis on Popper's commitments to probabilityin this text and focused on it for about a year or so. While I find his methodology ultimately flawed, I respect his approach (even moreso in historical context). Also, the anthology edited by Dan Hausman, The Philosophy of Economics, is a good one. Bad: Plantinga on the evolution of the eye. It was/is painful to read. Keep in mind that I've purposefully stayed away from reading the likes of Hegel, Zizek, Heidegger, etc.

In terms of format and presentation, thegradcafe > whogotin.

Theory and Reality is a great introduction to Phil Science. He goes through the motions presenting Popper, Kuhn, etc. then gives an introduction to both contemporary Bayesian Epistemology and somewhat less contemporary Naturalized Epistemology. I was a satisfying read.

Here's the reading list I'm currently working through: Savage - The Foundations of Statistics Gauthier - Morals by Agreement Luce & Raiffa - Games and Decisions Rawls - A Theory of Justice Binmore - Rational Decisions The theme is decision/game theory and applications. I'm finding Rawls to be the most readable of the bunch.

Agreed. I've taken only 13 courses designated as Philosophy in undergrad. It's rather impressive!

I second this! I used the Stewart book for Calc I & II. I transferred schools and used the Salas, Hille, and Etgen book for Calc III. It was much worse all the way around, especially the amount of errors. Just know that with the Stewart book you're in good hands and that you could be much worse off.

Favorite Fodor quote: “It is a curiosity of the philosophical temperament, this passion for radical solutions. Do you feel a little twinge in your epistemology? Absolute skepticism is the thing to try... Apparently the rule is: if aspirin doesn't work, try cutting off your head.”

Congrats! Masters or PhD? It's always nice to meet someone with similar interests.

I'm in the same boat. Mine is due on the 28th. Good luck!

Not right now, at least. For the Econ programs, I'm interested mostly in Micro Theory. In some sense, my writing sample on probability is relevant to work in this field. With this being said, many of the non-philosophy programs that I'm looking at do not require writing samples. Even though the programs are in different types of departments, I intend to study the same broad topic. For example, to study environmental ethics, one may study philosophy, pol sci, public policy, and so forth.

Undergrad: Large and somewhat respected state school, although, not for my interests. Switched from Math to Bio/Pre-Med to Econ and eventually added on Philosophy. Needless to say, I've taken many more than the minimum number of courses required for a bachelors. Ending with a 3.7 overall and much higher for my last two years and in my degree areas. I've recently become interested in math, again, and am spending Fall '14 and Spring '15 taking a handful of undergrad/grad math courses. Other: My GRE score was lower than I had hoped, especially the writing. To be fair, I didn't take it as seriously as I should have. I published in an undergrad journal (that hardly counts as publishing) and presented at a handful of conferences, including a professional one. I have also done some empirical work in Econ and hope to get my name onto a publication from a research center at my university before next Fall. Interests: My interests can be broadly characterized as 'Formal Epistemology.' Specifically, I'm interested in game theory, epistemic logic, and probability theory. My writing sample is a shortened version of my undergrad thesis on Popper and logical probability. I'm applying to Phil, Econ, and, perhaps, Math programs. jjb919, congrats on the acceptance!

I second this. NIU seems like a good place to be for an MA.

Agreed! When reading Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic one can't help but feel the excitement. It was as if they solved everything at once.

I will be at the Undergrad Ethics Workshop/Conference at DePauw April 10-12. Edit: Poor typing skills on a mobile device.

As a current resident of Atlanta, I agree completely.

A difficulty I've had with statements of ethics and moral philosophy is one of scope. I lean to the non-cognitivist side regarding traditional moral statements, such as 'don't kill Bob.' Given a suitably expansive applicability to include all instances of choice, there may exist principles that one should follow, such as transitivity. These do seem outside of ethics' scope, so I went with the last option.

For next time around, I suggest a Robert Solomon book.

I was told the same, and it opened my eyes to new programs. I'm glad it happened too! Edit: The head of the ad com at my undergrad institution referred to it as academic incest, with regard to doing both undergrad and PhD at the same place.

I don't know more than what's listed on their page, but I do plan to apply there next cycle and see what happens.

As someone who's primarily a lurker, reading about dfindley makes occasionally checking GradCafe more interesting.

Agreed. Steinhart's book is a great introduction!

I graduate in May and am applying for Fall 2015. I'm going to spend the next year trying to claw my way out of debt. With that being said, I do agree!