AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION- THE VALUE OF PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY.

(I AM A MEMBER.- DAVID.)

Dear DAVID,

I am writing today to let you know that the APA board of officers has approved the following statement, which was proposed by the committee on public philosophy and the committee on the status and future of the profession:

The American Philosophical Association values philosophers' participation in the public arena. This includes work that engages with contemporary issues as well as work that brings traditional philosophies to non-traditional settings. Public philosophy may also bring the discipline into dialogue with other humanities, the arts, natural sciences, social sciences, and interested people outside of academia. Public philosophy is done in a variety of traditional and non-traditional media. Public philosophy can be especially valuable when it reaches populations that tend not to have access to philosophy and philosophers. Further, the APA notes that public philosophy raises the profile of the discipline, the scholar, and the home institution.

The APA encourages departments, colleges, and universities to recognize public philosophy as a growing site of scholarly involvement. To that end, the APA encourages institutions to develop standards for evaluating and practices for rewarding public philosophy in decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and salary, so that faculty members who are interested in this work may, if they choose, pursue it with appropriate recognition and without professional discouragement or penalty. Although peer-reviewed scholarly publications remain central to the profession, the APA applauds philosophers' contributions to public policy, to consultation with government, medical, business, and civil society institutions, and to public opinion in general. Public philosophy presented or published outside of standard academic venues has evident value as external service to the profession and/or community. But we also urge institutions to consider broadening their standards for evidence of excellence in research and teaching and to consider whether their faculty’s work in public philosophy is more properly counted as contributing to these latter categories of faculty evaluation.

We encourage you to use this statement as a tool in your own institution to advocate for policies and practices that recognize public philosophy and all scholars who do publicly engaged work.

All the best,

Amy E. Ferrer

Executive Director

LOGIC. SEEKING THE TRUTH. HOW ABOUT REALLY LISTENING? #3.

Let us Turn to Example #2.

NEWS CONFERENCE, FOR A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR

NATIONAL OFFICE.

Reporter- "You are Hoping to Unseat an Incumbent, who has been

in office for over a Decade. What do you Offer as Favorable Alternative,

to the Current Officeholder."

Candidate- "Im glad you asked. I represent the future of Politics, Elected

Officials who will listen to the Will of the Voters. We Need a Change of

Direction, going back to the TRADITIONS THAT MADE THIS COUNTRY

GREAT."

After Listening to this, what do we now know about the Candidate, that

could help the Voter make an Informed Decision on Election Day?

Finally, Example #3.

You are Watching T.V., and while Turning the Channel, you come Across

the Following:

Spokesperson- "Yes, I know its Hard to Believe, but Taking Just Two Pills,

Twice a Day, will result in an Almost Immediate Improvement in your Condition.

It is a Treatment Doctors and Big Pharma dont want you to Try, because They

dont make any Money off of it. The are Trying to Discredit Its Effectiveness, so

you will continue to take Their Prescriptions."

How much of what you have just Heard Sounds Truthful, and Why?

To be continued...

LOGIC. ONE WAY TO ENCOURAGE PROPER ANALYSIS: DO NOT COMBINE TWO DISTINCT ISSUES.

As the controversy about a possible RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2016 U.S ELECTION HEATS UP, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE THING PERFECTLY CLEAR;  MY SERIES OF POSTS TITLED, "THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG...", DOES NOT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING:  

INFORMATION ACQUIRED, AND DISSEMINATED, THROUGH "HACKING" OR UNAUTHORIZED VISITATION TO ANY FILES, EITHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.

THE MULTI-PART ARTICLE,"THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG...", DEALS WITH CALCULATED AND DELIBERATE ACT(S) OF ALTERING THE VOTING RESULTS IN AT LEAST 5 STATES, WITH THE GOAL OF ENSURING DONALD TRUMPS VICTORY IN THE 2016 ELECTION.  IN THIS POST, I WILL NOT GET INTO THE EVIDENCE, OR MY REASONING, FOR COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION. FOR THAT I REFER 
YOU TO THE SERIES OF POSTS ADDRESSING THE SUBJECT.

WHAT MUST BE MADE CLEAR IS THE FOLLOWING: THE TOPIC OF RUSSIA, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY, INDIVIDUAL, OR GROUP BEING GUILTY OF TAMPERING WITH THE ELECTION BY PROVIDING ILLEGALLY OBTAINED INFORMATION TO ONE SIDE IN BENEFITTING THEIR CANDIDATE OF CHOICE, IS AN ENTIRELY SEPERATE ISSUE FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER CONTAINED IN MY ARTICLE. 

THE CONCLUSIONS:

X OBTAINED INFORMATION ILLEGALLY, AND PROVIDED IT TO ONE SIDE IN THE DESIRE TO BENEFIT CANDIDATE A...

AND

THE VOTING COUNTS IN ...WERE ALTERED DELIBERATELY, GIVING ELECTORAL VICTORY TO CANDIDATE B...

...ARE SEPERATE AND DISTINCT.  THE TRUTH OF ONE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OTHER. THEY MAY BOTH BE TRUE, OR BOTH FALSE. ONE MAY BE TRUE, AND THE OTHER FALSE. WE MUST NOT ALLOW EVIDENCE, OR LACK OF, IN ONE CASE TO BE USED IN JUDGING THE OTHER.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE MOST DANGEROUS ONE OF ALL. PT 5.

Let us Start the list with what may be the Most Offensive Category of Hypocrite to be found anywhere.

The RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITE- Question: How many Times can the RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITE get away with the Lying and Deceit That is the Trademark of Their Behavior?

Answers- 1) As Long as the Gullible continue to Swallow the "APOLOGIES," and FORGIVE THE LAPSES IN JUDGMENT.

2) As long as Their Double Standards and Self -Centered Lifestyle continues to Further the Interests of Others, who also Live by the same CODE OF CONDUCT.

3) Until Those who Oppose the Reasoning behind the Goals of the RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITE, Make a Stand and Show Them for what They really are; AMORAL OPPORTUNISTS WHO SEE SUCH MORAL IMPERATIVES AS FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AS CONDITIONAL, WHERE THE DEFINITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH MAXIMS IS DEPENDENT UPON THE SITUATION. They are APPLIED WHEN AND WHERE THE RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITE BELIEVES THEY SHOULD BE.

4) When Those who Cheer the Unequal Treatment the RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITE GIVES TO CERTAIN LEGAL ISSUES, IS AS MUCH A DANGER TO THEM AS ANYONE ELSE. ITS TOUGH TO ARGUE PREJUDICE AND INEQUALITY IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM, WHEN YOUVE BEEN PUSHING THE SAME TYPE OF INVALID REASONING FOR OTHER ISSUES. Do you really Think Those WHO have been Harmed and Oppressed will Turn a Blind Eye WHEN IT IS YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS THAT ARE BEING INFRINGED UPON?