Photos on BU professor’s website cause stir

Professor Siegel in one of the controversial photographs removed from his academic website this week

“If he wants to be an international arms dealer, there’s really nothing we can do about that—but don’t put that kind of thing on a course website”

The philosophy blogosphere erupted in protest this week over photographs posted by Boston University philosophy professor Ken Siegel on a website for his applied ethics course.  The photographs depict Siegel posing with guns, explosives and even armored cars.

Clearly, Siegel isn’t your average university professor.  He’s also an international arms dealer.  While he can be found in Boston during the workweek, on most weekends Siegel flies to Central or South America to peddle small arms to gangs and paramilitary groups.  The photos are apparently from a shoot Siegel did with Guns & Ammo magazine as part of their “Campus Heat” series.

Advertisement

Kripke resigns as report alleges he faked results of thought experiments

“Did I tamper with the results? It’s possible.” Uttered by anyone else, this would be a damaging admission.

Saul Kripke resigned yesterday from his position as Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the CUNY Graduate Center.  While similar allegations have been circulating in unpublished form for years, a team of philosophers from Oxford University has just released a damning report claiming that they were systematically unable to reproduce the results of thought experiments reported by Kripke in his groundbreaking Naming and Necessity.  The team, led by Timothy Williamson, first became suspicious of Naming and Necessity after preliminary results raised questions about related work by Hilary Putnam.  While the group was initially unable to confirm that water is H₂O on Twin Earth, the results turned out to be due to contaminated research materials—one of the researchers’ minds had been contaminated by Chomskyan internalist semantics.

The inability to replicate Kripke’s results could not be similarly explained away, however, as the researcher in question was excluded from the analysis of Naming and Necessity.  The report, forthcoming in Philosophical Studies, claims that 74% of the book’s thought-experimental results could not be reproduced using the standard philosophical criteria for inter-researcher agreement.  A second version of the analysis, employing a generous application of the principle of charity, still left 52% of the results unverified.