At the end of the day, the only truly obtuse and inchoate thing in all this is the distinction between analytical and continental philosophy. One is a relatively contained proliferation of research programs of twentieth century Anglophone philosophers; the other is just everything they do not claim.
Philosophers going at it again. It reminds me of physics envy in scientific psychology, that pits “robust” quantitative psychologists against the “soft” interpretative, qualitative, often critical perspectives. While all those narcissism of minimal difference remain largely invisible from outside.
A vintage-style “Wanted” poster featuring Robin Hood–themed characters posing as a diverse band of archers and scholars. The text reads: “Join the fight to make knowledge free. Divest from commercial academic publishing and join the Open Library of Humanities.
I wrote the blog post behind our new Robin Hood @openlibhums.org poster! In it, I reflect on why divesting scholarly publishing from commercial interests and redirecting library budgets into #diamondOA is so urgent.
Read it (and grab the poster!) here: www.openlibhums.org/news/932/
#UKSG2026
MA funding for 2026/7 is available now in the school of Philosophy, Religion and History of Science at Leeds ahc.leeds.ac.uk/philosophy/n...
“…If universities continue to treat that only as a question of procurement efficiency, they will keep losing ground while believing they are acting prudently.”
“But it is clear that the commercial actors already have a destination in mind for where the sector could be heading: toward deeper ownership of the infrastructure around research, not just its outputs…”
“The danger of landlordism is that dependence eventually starts to look like efficiency. Under budget pressure, integrated commercial systems can seem like the most practical response to complexity…”
In light of some of the talks at #uksg26 on open infrastructure, OA and similar - the following may be of interest ;)
(And if you're talking new products are UKSG, maybe keep this in the back of your mind!)
The writing was on the wall when the current government appointed their corrupt state attorney. This is a cold shower for all those who were thinking: “Well, it’s not as bad as in Hungary or Slovakia.”
You have operationalized the nagging (guilty?) sentiment behind any metascience work; “libriarians are my best friends.” Very neat and I am looking forward to read how you’re going to do it.
Excited and happy to report that we (@ccmmody.bsky.social, Ewout Meijer, Marielle Prevoo, Yannis Stravrakakis, Penelope Bollini, and I) will be able to start the new project "Invisible knowledge work and the transformation and scaling of open science practices". This is a unique project --> 1/2
The fee to publish an open access paper at Trends in Cognitive Science is now over $7,000. Seriously, @elsevierconnect.bsky.social ??? For a 4,000 word piece? Talk about a broken system.
It’s the proverbial gift that keeps on giving.
I take the -isms as navigation tools to compact standard arguments into jargon. Sometimes a sneaky writer hides a crucial point in such a meaning .rar, and unpacking this act requires even more philosophizing. At other times, folks spend a lot of time aligning the various -isms in sensible ways.
Whenever someone mentions Copilot in conversation, I hear kopile instead.
Papers invited for an open panel on critical metascience at the 2026 meeting of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology
Convenors:
@jackstilgoe.bsky.social
@noortjem.bsky.social
@ismaelrafols.bsky.social
Tommaso Ciarli
@cianooo.bsky.social
#STS
Leblebija is one of the Turkish loan words in Serbian (funnily enough, not in standard Croatian which prefers the Slavic slanutak). Cool expression!
Kirill, whoever you are, I owe you one.
post by Rutger Bregman (@rutgerbregman.com) reads: Absolutely brilliant piece about the Left's TOTAL blindness on AI. Their dismissal of AI risks mirrors how climate deniers treat CO2. Will probably get a lot of nastiness for this on Bluesky, but I guess that's part of the same problem.
i shouldn’t give this piece any more attention than it has already garnered but i feel like it is worth pointing out some flaws in the argument/unquestioned assumptions
thread 1/
Makes me wonder: Can we meaningfully conceptualize models and modeling without appealing to representations and representing? Without assuming a corresponding entity?
Jennifer @JenYetAgain@beige.party in 2017 a popular twitter game was to type a partial phrase then see what your phone auto-completes it with. this proved so popular that it is now the only business model in the US. Feb 9, 2026 at 4:35:18PM Boosted by 968: Favourited by 1324:
mom they’re roasting the US economy on mastodon again
Good handle for an analytic metaphysician
This is also what I really like about reading broadly. You get to experiende all these recipes for ingredients and mull them over in what they do to the body of knowledge they induct you in.
There’s also all kinds of books. The ratio of analysis to description that is informative is also constrained by disciplinary norms. A good argument in a philosophical book is not a good argument in a historical one, and neither are appropriate for their hybrid or a more broader public facing book.
Does thinking about research in book-sized chunks constrain the ways we do historical research? It's something I have been wondering about... @standrewshist.bsky.social See: online.ucpress.edu/hsns/article...
Any millennial from the 90s and 00s knows this even if they didn't consciously realise it at the time, yup
Also, what goes on when some communities of scientists start deconstructing a metaphor, but other communities still stick to it. Productive tensions!
Lovely reminder how powerful good metaphors are not only for communicating science to the world, but as an analogical tool for coordinating research across disciplines.
“Generative models learn abstract patterns—“catness” instead of a specific cat—and elaborate them dynamically in several increasingly complex, partially randomized steps to produce entirely new images. The same model, given the same prompt, is exceedingly unlikely to produce the same output twice.”
