General Discussion: Introduction to Philosophy

@clhendricksbc one thought might be to have a companion/separate Open Anthology of Philosophy (with PD & CC content) …

@clhendricksbc Yes that sounds great. I’d be willing to be a section editor for ethics. I could also do the same for philosophy of mind if need be. Sorry for being a bit incommunicado lately – it’s the beginning of the semester! Thanks for the reminders!
-G

@clhendricksbc You might also consider the problem of including texts that are likely too compact/jargon heavy for the students. I think that there’s no problem in including or not including readings, so long as the reasons are clearly indicated. I don’t think any student would feel cheated if they were told that some text was too recent to be cited, (or too convoluted to be included - but they are welcome to click on a link and try to read it if they want).
Also, it’s worth noting that a text could enter public domain through other means than the author dying some specified amount of years ago, so there could be some philosophical works from after the 19th century available without any copyright.

@geoslack That’s great! I’ll be in touch via email to talk particulars… Thanks so much!

@unfalsify Yes, good point. There are multiple reasons why something wouldn’t be included, and if some were and some weren’t, those reasons should be spelled out.

I’m rather liking @hugh’s idea of having two parallel things: one being the textbook with our writing about topics, and the other being an optional set of readings that could go with each section. They could be included in the first book, or not. Maybe as links? Now we’re starting to get into the territory of how these texts are going to work technically (e.g., how easy it might be to link from one “book” to another), but I don’t see why that wouldn’t be possible.

Hi everyone!
I’ve successfully caught up on the whole thread and have jotted down my impressions:

@clhendricksbc , @unfalsify (on adding references in the book)
I do agree that primary readings should be included in the book provided that they do not constitute the majority of the text (to be interpreted as more than 30% of any given section). Instead, primary readings and additional sources should be interspersed throughout the text to supplement the discourse of each section. This can be accomplished in the following ways:

  • Refer to a specific argument in the text and include that as a box or figure

I can picture clearly boxes on Searle’s Chinese Room and Nagel’s bat in the Philosophy of Mind chapter, for example

  • When mentioning an argument in passing, include a reference to it as a footnote
    • Finish each chapter or section with relevant literature that the student can refer to (to write a term paper, perhaps?)

In future stages at which the book becomes a more fluid resource than a static text, references could also be included by means of hyperlinks (a la Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Wikipedia type of affair)

Before beginning the writing of the sections, we should decide what fraction of the referred material is to be historical and how much of it should be current. (70% historical, 30% contemporary seems like a fair eyeball estimate)
If there is to be an anthology to supplement the book, some of the papers and classical works cited in the book can be included therein.

@knachel , @geoslack (on logic)

I definitely think that formal logic should be included as a section in the chapter on logic. Much of the development of 20th Century mathematics was strongly affected by logical positivism. For instance, we have David Hilbert’s formalist approach to mathematics dominating the science up until the discovery of incompleteness through Gödel’s theorems. These developments are heavily contingent on the work of philosophers the likes of Frege and Russel. This close intersection between logic and mathematics could very well be echoed in our own book. By this I mean that the impact of formal logic on natural science should be adequately emphasized in the chapter on Philosophy of Science

As far as I can tell, the chapter on logic should include

1. Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning
2. What makes an argument (rhetoric? dialectics?)
3. Logical Fallacies
4. Formal logic
	1. propositional logic
	2. first-order logic
	3. modal logic

The significance of formal logic to computer science and mathematics is irrefutable. It may seem daunting to find relevant examples, but these abound in introductory science courses. I would be more than happy to write this section myself with input from whoever would like to participate.

@drrobertfarrow (on visual aids)

The images that you’ve suggested in (https://www.pinterest.com/philosopher1978/philosophy-visualizations/ ) are wonderful!
These would definitely compliment and add a lot to the text. But then this brings me to the question of licensing:

  • How do we go about obtaining permission to use an image?
  • Which images should be chosen and where should they be placed?

The same questions go for plots if any kind of statistical information it to be presented as part of an argument or exposition to the material.
This makes me think that the task of finding images and obtaining permission for their use should be done once the text of the sections has been written.

@hugh , @clhendricksbc (on general editing)

I’ve looked at the other projects in this site and the prospect of using Pressbooks to publish in multiple formats entices me. As is the case with finding appropriate visual aids for the content of the book, I think this task should be initiated once preliminary drafts of the chapters have been completed. I think that a requisite to the credibility of the book–and by extension that of Open Textbooks–is to have a presentation that is aesthetically appealing (maybe tie it into the relevant chapter? :P) and comparable to that offered by commercial alternatives.

I’ve glimpsed at the OpenStax textbooks for science, and they are glossy and beautiful. We should strive for something similar. Maybe we could consider eventually outputting the textbook for use by their platform?

In addition, I agree that we would definitely benefit from writing some sample sections first to streamline a process. When a section is being written, these tasks should be kept in mind:

  1. Lay out the bare bones structure of an argument: What is the main question addressed in this section? How does it relate back to the chapter and the book as a whole?
  2. Expose arguments that have been provided to answer the questions
  3. During writing, leave room for
    i. Inserting references to contemporary arguments
    ii. Adding pictures and infographics to illustrate ideas conveyed in the text

Finally, I think that in identifying the tasks that are to be fulfilled in the writing of the book, many of these can only be started after the successful completion of a prior task. It is therefore very important to devise a timeline to identify the dependences and order in which content is to be developed and polished. The use of a platform such as taiga has already been suggested. Another thing worth considering is implementing a Gantt Chart, as this is a methodology that explicitly accounts for schedule interdependencies.

So, do we have two section editors confirmed? That’s exciting! We’ll put out a little blog post about this shortly!

Comments on some of @sebastian.higherlearning 's post below:

In future stages at which the book becomes a more fluid resource than a static text, references could also be included by means of hyperlinks (a la Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Wikipedia type of affair)

Yes, one of the benefits of Open Textbooks is that they can easily serve as a framework upon which other resources can be added.

Before beginning the writing of the sections, we should decide what fraction of the referred material is to be historical and how much of it should be current. (70% historical, 30% contemporary seems like a fair eyeball estimate)

My 2cents here: different sections may have different needs (so each section editor should have flexibility here).

If there is to be an anthology to supplement the book, some of the papers and classical works cited in the book can be included therein.

exactly.

These would definitely compliment and add a lot to the text. But then this brings me to the question of licensing:

How do we go about obtaining permission to use an image?

Images are complicated. The images should be CC BY licensed, otherwise all sorts of headaches get introduced into the openness/use of the text. Adding image copyright clearance is a non-trivial task … so my recommendation is we tread lightly with images, certainly as we get started.

This makes me think that the task of finding images and obtaining permission for their use should be done once the text of the sections has been written.

agree – because of the complexity of sourcing & licensing of CC BY images, they should be considered an enhancement to the open textbook, and not a necessary condition.

I’ve looked at the other projects in this site and the prospect of using Pressbooks to publish in multiple formats entices me.

Yes, the plan is to use Pressbooks.

As is the case with finding appropriate visual aids for the content of the book, I think this task should be initiated once preliminary drafts of the chapters have been completed.

right, I think the best route is:

  • Google Docs for the chapter drafts, feedback etc.
  • Pressbooks once chapters are ready
  • (probably) some kind of open review once in Pressbooks (to be discussed)

I think that a requisite to the credibility of the book–and by extension that of Open Textbooks–is to have a presentation that is aesthetically appealing (maybe tie it into the relevant chapter? :P)

Totally agree.

I’ve glimpsed at the OpenStax textbooks for science, and they are glossy and beautiful. We should strive for something similar. Maybe we could consider eventually outputting the textbook for use by their platform?

Heh. That’s messy. Pressbooks will generate something lovely! I promise.

In addition, I agree that we would definitely benefit from writing some sample sections first to streamline a process. When a section is being written, these tasks should be kept in mind:

Lay out the bare bones structure of an argument: What is the main question addressed in this section? How does it relate back to the chapter and the book as a whole?
Expose arguments that have been provided to answer the questions
During writing, leave room for
i. Inserting references to contemporary arguments
ii. Adding pictures and infographics to illustrate ideas conveyed in the text

Sounds like a good approach – though I guess that each section editor & chapter author will have their own quirks.

Finally, I think that in identifying the tasks that are to be fulfilled in the writing of the book, many of these can only be started after the successful completion of a prior task. It is therefore very important to devise a timeline to identify the dependences and order in which content is to be developed and polished. The use of a platform such as taiga has already been suggested. Another thing worth considering is implementing a Gantt Chart, as this is a methodology that explicitly accounts for schedule interdependencies.

Comments:

  • Rebus is actively working on some kinds of project management tools, that might work in parallel with something like Taiga.
  • Our approach should be to make sure that each section is independent, so the dependencies should mainly be within each section (so something like for instance: draft > write > feedback > edit > external resources > Pressbooks > feedback > finalize)
  • Figuring out a sensible process with this group of contributors/this project is … exactly what we want to get out of this project … so that we can apply this to other projects as Rebus scales up. So, fittingly, philosophy will set the framework upon which everything else will be built at Rebus!
1 Like

Hi everyone,

I’m discussing with the two new section editors we have and @Hugh about project management tools. I’ve used slack, trello, asana, and am taking a close look at Taiga b/c it’s open source. Do those of you who have used Taiga recommend it? If so, why? Is it like one of the three noted above in some way (which I am familiar with so can give me a reference point)?

I have a preference for open source where possible, so if others recommend Taiga we may head in that direction.

Hello all,

I’ve restructured the discussion thread, so that:
– Intro to Phil now has sub threads, so a thread for each of the Sections (current focus on):

  • Aesthetics (W. Scott Clifton)
  • Ethics (George Mathews)

See:
https://forum.rebus.community/category/17/phil-introduction-to-philosophy-lead-christina-hendricks-ubc

Hello,

I’d be happy to provide proofreading or copyediting assistance for this project. My academic background is in media studies and library and information studies, and I have experience copyediting and proofreading.
Thanks!
Mary Brunskill

@marykathleenb86 That’s great…thanks so much Mary! I will put you on the list of people we have generated for the project, which is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a71X6Qs45W0W8_oM7p3zdEQdFTNd5VRJ4zMzaEEHefM/edit#gid=0

Hi everyone,

We have a draft table of contents for the ethics section of this book. Can you please take a look and give comments? We’d like to have a general sense of what that section will look like and then we’ll be looking for people to help write it!

It’s over in this thread: https://forum.rebus.community/topic/126/ethics-section-ed-george-matthews

Hi. In the unlikely event you need someone else, count me in. I have an MA in philosophy (and another in economics, though that’s not likely useful) and I’ve written a not-very-good, not-very-popular, free philosophy textbook. I suppose it proves my ideological credentials if nothing else.

I teach philosophy and composition at an Ontario college, so I’m pretty familiar with the needs of college students. They sometimes get short shrift in textbooks. Perhaps that point of view might be useful to you.

@adam Yes! we definitely need more people. What specific areas are you interested in contributing to? We are currently focusing on 2 sections:
Ethics & Aesthetics.

But of course there are many more sections in need of contributors.

@hugh Great! I’m afraid I don’t know a thing about aesthetics. Ethics I can muddle through, metaphysics too. I’m not bad with the Greeks when that comes around. I’m no Kant expert, but I’m more sympathetic than most.

I’ll lurk around the ethics section for now, but feel free to deploy me if something needs proofing, reading, or editing.

Hi @adam! I wonder if you could fill out a line on this spreadsheet with your info…it’s where we are keeping track of who has which interest/expertise areas: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a71X6Qs45W0W8_oM7p3zdEQdFTNd5VRJ4zMzaEEHefM/edit#gid=266577735

And please look at the ethics section discussion we have so far to see if you have any thoughts! https://forum.rebus.community/topic/126/ethics-section-ed-george-matthews

And I’d love to take a look at your free philosophy textbook if you can give us a link!

I’m pinging a few people who expressed interest in ethics–see below!

@drrobertfarrow @dr-wpdavis @paul-s-boswell @bolaigeefealabi

@clhendricksbc said in General Project / Book Info & Discussion:

Hi everyone,

We have a draft table of contents for the ethics section of this book. Can you please take a look and give comments? We’d like to have a general sense of what that section will look like and then we’ll be looking for people to help write it!

It’s over in this thread: https://forum.rebus.community/topic/126/ethics-section-ed-george-matthews

@clhendricksbc Thanks. I filled in the info. [Here’s a link](https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3kbi8691j5prlln/AADn2hX_C5I5UIu33SML7iwya?dl=0 to the book–there are two versions, one pretty and one more complicated.

Hello all,

I’m late to the conversation, but happy to be joining it. My name is James, and I teach intro philosophy courses and intro ethics courses on the Downtown Phoenix campus of ASU (in addition to courses in English composition, literature, film, gender studies, and religious studies). At ASU I serve as the Digital Humanities Course Manager for the Languages & Cultures faculty as well as a Faculty Fellow in the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy.

I’m interested in this process for multiple reasons, but what draws me in the most is the potential for a text book that is radically collaborative and one that has the possibility to ensure a greater level of access for students coming from a variety of walks of life.