Consider a thought experiment: imagine that philosophers in the analytic tradition concluded that reason is historical. How would that change what they do? — Welkin Rogue
I haven't yet been able to clearly see the cash value, the pragmatic upshot, the real, concrete effect that embracing or rejecting historicism would have on the discipline, including how it interacts with these supposedly marginalised views. — Welkin Rogue
... it is constitutionally averse [to] an examination of the social and political forces that have shaped it.
To some extent this is already going on. For example, the expanding field of 'conceptual engineering' within analytic philosophy isn't interested in eternally true conceptual analyses, but rather in the possibility, problems and principles that should guide change in our concepts and meanings. — Welkin Rogue
Does Blackstone's ratio apply to the issue? Better that a 100 guilty people go free than that 1 innocent person be unjustly punished. Better that we deal with a 100 bad ideas than that 1 good idea be suppressed. — Agent Smith
Does what we have now in academia approximate your proposal? When you talk about 'bad ideas', do you include evaluatively (morally, politically) bad as well as shoddy/low quality ideas? Content regulation as practiced by journals and universities is fairly liberal when it comes to evaluative regulation, but is more variable when it comes to epistemic regulation (you can troll some journals by showing how bad quality articles can get approved, e.g., the Sokal Hoax).
But it seems like you're just talking about censorship, not affirmative action. You could have your proposal implemented alongside affirmative action, as far as I can tell. — Welkin Rogue
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.