Bit of a short notice, but I just saw an announcement for this conference on the law (or principle, whichever you prefer) of non-contradiction. This is always a topic that interests me, and of course I’ve got a paper on LNC as well, ‘The Law of Non-Contradiction as a Metaphysical Principle’. Well, I don’t think I’ll be able to attend, but it looks quite interesting. Would be useful to know Italian though, as some of the papers are in Italian. Bologna is a nice city as well.

Here’s the announcement:

An international meeting on the Principle of Non-Contradiction (history and theory) will be held in Bologna on next September 30th-October 1st. Everyone interested is welcome. For any information, please contact Walter Cavini (walter.cavini@unibo.it).

The Principle of Non-Contradiction
History and Theory

Bologna, September 30th-October 1st, 2010
Rodolfo Mondolfo Hall
Via Zamboni, 38 – Third Floor

September 30th

Chair Walter Cavini

9:30 Graham Priest, Plato’s Parmenides

11 Break

11:15 Jonathan Barnes, Against Aristotle?

Chair Gerhard Seel

15:30 Mauro Nasti De Vincentis, Forme della Contraddizione e Sillogistica Aristotelica

17 Break

17:15 Walter Cavini, Truth and (Non-) Contradiction: Some Ancient Reflections

20 Dinner (Anna Maria, Via delle Belle Arti, 17/A)

October 1st

Chair Jonathan Barnes

9:15 Mirella Capozzi, Kant e il Principio di Non Contraddizione

10:45 Break

11 Enrico Berti, Hegel e il Principio di Non Contraddizione

Chair Graham Priest

14:00 Franca D’Agostini, What Kind of Law Is the Law of Non-Contradiction?

15:30 Break

15:45 Gerhard Seel, What is Pragmatic Self-Contradiction? Some Semantical Considerations

17:15 Break

17:30 Annalisa Coliva/Sebastiano Moruzzi, Relativism and Contradiction

Race Date: 5.9.2010
Official Finishing Time: 40:50 chip time, 41:12 gun time (PB)
Official Position: 142 (136 chip time)/2677
Race number: 80

My previous 10k race, and in fact my first 10k road race, was 2 months ago in Darlington (race report here). I managed 40:53 there, so this was a PB, if only by three seconds. This was to be the race where I break the 40min barrier for 10k, but it wasn’t my day. It went fine until 6k, but the splits were awful after that. The start was fairly crowded, but the starting pens helped a little. I started from the 36-40min pen, but it seems that many people were a bit too optimistic about their abilities, as I must’ve overtaken at least a hundred runners in the first 5k. I did lose maybe 10 places in the last 3k, but none of the people I overtook would’ve been under 40min.

The race was well organised and I don’t really have any complaints, except perhaps the location, which was some four miles from Middlesbrough railway station, meaning that I had to take the taxi to get there. The goodie back included a decent technical shirt, a keyring, a medal and a Mars bar. The only thing I would’ve liked in addition was a sports drink, as I didn’t take one with me. I’m not too bothered about the medal, so I would’ve gladly exchanged that for a drink. What I found really great was that I got the results via a text message a mere hour after finishing the race. That’s amazing compared to the two or so weeks that I’ve had to wait with some races! The bag storage worked very smoothly as well. Certainly a race that I would do again.

The weather was really nice and sunny — almost too warm in fact. There was a little bit of wind as well. Nothing too significant, but the headwind hit me just as I was struggling anyway, and on one of the only uphill bits. The route itself is fairly flat though, and certainly a fast one, if not quite as fast as the Darlington Pit Stop 10k. The total height gain as recorded by my Garmin was 32m, compared to 16m on the Pit Stop route. There were some bands along the route playing mostly well known rock tunes, which was actually quite nice. Godd support from spectators as well, although my personal favourite was a drunkard (barely) standing at a bus stop, clearly not quite sure about what was happening around him (I hope he wasn’t waiting for the bus anyway, as the road was closed for traffic).

Like I said, the first half of the race went as planned, and I was feeling pretty good at the 5k point. By 7k my pace had dropped over the 4min mark but I was still doing ok, until the windy uphill bit hit me. I totally lost my pace and felt that sub 40min is probably not on, which caused an additional lack of motivation and a terrible ninth kilometer. I feel that I could’ve taken it back a little on the last kilometer, but the motivation just wasn’t there. The result was just a PB, but it didn’t feel like it: my performance in Darlington was much more consistent, and in fact according to my Garmin I did 10k in exactly 40min there.

Splits (according to Garmin):
1k 4:22 (~4:00 chip time)
2k 3:59
3k 3:53
4k 3:54
5k 3:52
6k 4:00
7k 4:07
8k 4:14
9k 4:27
10k 4:12
10.06k 0:11
Total: 10.06k in 41:11

I set the Garmin off with the gun, so in reality the first split is pretty much exactly 4:00. The extra 60m is due to that as well. As you can see, it all went wrong after 6k. I could come up with some excuses for not performing better — such as the fact that I had some trouble sleeping last night and wasn’t perhaps ideally focused for the race — but really I think I just haven’t progressed very much in the last two months. Only one thing to do then: get some more training miles in! That won’t help with the Great North Run though, which is in just two weeks’ time, but I think I’ll look for another 10k race before the year is over.

Garmin data here.
Official results here.

I’d like to point any readers towards the vote on the best Philosophy Blog Post of the year at 3 Quarks Daily. My entry is number 33 and any votes will of course be much appreciated, if you happen to like the nominated post!

I thought I’d advertsie some blogs/blog posts which I’ve recently bumped into and thought worth sharing:

• Jonathan Ichikawa talks about Varieties of Modality at his blog There is Some Truth in That. I had to link to this because I’ve got a draft of a paper with the exact same title. I’ve just posted a new version here in fact.
• Bill Vallicella discusses Mereological Innocence and Composition as Identity at Maverick Philosopher.
• Finnish readers might find a couple of blogs interesting, firstly a blog by a philosophy student: Todellinen-tuonpuoleinen.
• Another one by a Finnish friend of mine, mostly on issues related to the society: Valmis maa. He also has two blogs in English, one is effectively a translation of the first, In a Complete World, the other deals with the entertainment industry: Entertainment Evolution
• Ben Burgis at (Blog&~Blog) recently wrote an interesting series of posts on the Liar Paradox.
• Finally I’d like to link to Edward Feser’s blog. Partly because he has been kind enough to link to my blog, and partly because some of the discussions in the comments to his posts are quite hilarious. His good but opinionated posts sometimes seem to attract a bunch of trolls.

I’ve been using the Garmin Forerunner 310XT for almost two months now, so it’s time for a review. Before the 310XT, I had the 405CX, which I also reviewed. I was mostly happy with the 405CX, although at times the bezel system was a bit irritating and the 8h battery life wasn’t quite enough for hill walking. These weren’t the reasons for changing into 310XT though. The reason was that after about six months, the unit became rather unreliable: the battery sometimes lasted only a couple of hours and it died on me on a few long runs. I sent the unit to Garmin and they were happy to send me a replacement. However, I took the opportunity to get some more battery life, so I sold the 405CX and bought a brand new 310XT. A new unit with a heart rate monitor goes for around £230.

Most of the good things I said about the 405CX in my review apply to the 310XT as well, so I will focus on their differences in this review. The 310XT is aimed especially at triathletes, so it’s water-resistant. I haven’t taken it to the pool or on bike rides myself though, as I’m really just a runner at the moment. Having said that, I think I’ve already reached a stage in my training where I’d like to introduce something else than running. I could just go to the gym I guess, but the idea of some day completing an Ironman race has creeped into my mind… Well, the 310XT would certainly be the perfect partner for that, but I think that there will be new technology in the market by the time I would actually be able to pull it off!

Here is a little comparison of the 405CX and the 310XT:

Garmin Forerunner 310XT

310XT’s benefits over 405CX:

• Longer battery life (20h vs. 8h reported).
• Water-resistant to 50m.
• Better user interface (buttons instead of bezel).
• Each training display fits four data fields (three in 405CX).
• New data fields, such as realtime height gain and height loss (useful for those hikes).
• Bigger & better display.
• Slightly more comfortable heart rate monitor, although you can use the same with 405CX if you buy it separately.

405CX’s benefits over 310XT:

• Smaller and lighter, and also better design.
• You get an extra wrist band with the unit; I liked the velcro wrist band.
• Can be used as a watch, as the time is visible in stand by mode as well.
• More comfortable to wear.

I would say that the benefits of 310XT outweigh those of the 405CX. The prices of the units are pretty much the same, but I could see why some might prefer the less bulky look & feel of the 405CX. The basic functionality of the units is very similar; I haven’t really noticed any difference in terms of GPS accuracy or the features, except for the few added data fields and the map drawing function of the 310XT. Personally I value the long battery life of the 310XT, as well as the realtime height gain & loss data fields. These make the unit a nice companion on hill walks. I used it on my recent trip to the Dolomites (report of the trip here) and it was quite useful there. I could even use it two days in a row without charging it. Of course, the GPS is not very accurate for height gain and there were some glitches, but for the most part it was within 10-20m of the height reported on the map.

I still feel that one of the greatest features of these Garmin products is the Garmin Connect site. I could continue using the same profile as I did with the 405CX by just adding the new device. The site was recently revamped and it does look rather nice. There is also a feature for correcting any glitches in height gain that might’ve occurred, so you’re sure to get accurate information at least when you upload it to Garmin Connect.

In summary, the 310XT is another great product from Garmin. I just hope that the battery holds up better than it did in my 405CX. However, having seen how good their customer service is, the year’s warranty that these units have is actually quite useful.

3 Quarks Daily calls for submissions for the 2nd annual prize for the best blog post in philosophy. The deadline is 11:59 pm EDT on August 31, 2010, and posts written within the last 12 months qualify. Akeel Bilgrami will act as the final judge and top 3 posts will receive a cash prize. I’m not sure about my own posts, but perhaps I will nominate one of them. Any suggestions, or indeed nominations of my posts, are very welcome.

This looks nice, but too far away for me! Fraser Macbride as the invited speaker. Here is the CFP, not much time left though:

The Society for the Study of the History of Analytical Philosophy (SSHAP) will be meeting in Minneapolis during the Central APA (March 30-April 2, 2011). SSHAP wishes to invite members and non-members to submit contributions on the following topic:

Truth in Analytic Philosophy

Invited speaker: Fraser MacBride (University of Cambridge)

The nature of truth is a perennial topic for philosophy, but the advent of analytic philosophy seems to have put debates about truth on a new course. Initially writers such as Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein tried to distinguish themselves by arguing that their views of truth were considerably clearer than their predecessors. Later Tarski’s seminal writings on truth forced a reevaluation of some earlier approaches and also led to some new theories as in the work of Carnap, Quine and Davidson. These debates continue into the present where philosophers combine issues from logic, semantics, metaphysics and epistemology in order to articulate and defend their preferred proposals. The questions this raises include the following: Is there anything distinctive about the way analytic philosophers have approached truth historically? What lessons can we learn about current debates on truth by considering earlier analytic philosophers? What have been the neglected trends in the history of analytical philosophical thought about truth?

CALL FOR PAPERS

A limited number of papers will be selected for presentation at the meeting. Time allowed for presentations is 60 minutes including discussion. Submitted papers should have a maximum of 4000 words and should be accompanied by a 200 words abstract.

All submitted papers should be PREPARED FOR BLIND REVIEW, and should be sent electronically to:

bolzano@ksu.edu

EXTENDED DEADLINE: 1 September 2010. Authors will be notified shortly thereafter.

In addition to individual papers, the scientific committee will be considering PROPOSALS FOR SYMPOSIA. Time allowed for symposia is 3 hours (including discussion). Symposia should include a minimum of three and a maximum of four contributions. Submissions should be clearly identified as “Symposium proposal” and include:

1) The title of the symposium
2) A brief description of the topic and its relevance to the conference (200 words)
3) The name, affiliation and academic status (student, lecturer, assistant professor, etc.) of each participant
4) The title of each contribution as well as an extended 500-1000 word abstract.
5) The name, affiliation and academic status of the person who will be chairing the symposium

Symposium proposals should be sent electronically to:

bolzano@ksu.edu

EXTENDED DEADLINE: 1 September 2010. Authors will be notified shortly thereafter.

Or how I finally succumbed and joined Twitter. The primary motivation is to share philosophy news, blog posts, CFPs and so on, but it is likely that I will expand on that and cover all the topics that I do on the blog. Follow me here.

And for those of you who don’t know where the title of the post comes from, go check out Monty Python's Upper Class Twit Of The Year.

This looks like a great conference for those who are interested in the interface between metaphysics and science. The topic has been hot for a good few years already, but it shows no signs of cooling down! I’d love to go, but not sure if I could justify spending the money to get to Toronto…

Here is the official call for papers, still plenty of time to write that paper:

METAPHYSICS & THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE CONFERENCE

Presented by the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science
and Technology, University of Toronto and the Fishbein Center for the
History of Science and Medicine, University of Chicago

13-15 May 2011, University of Toronto

The philosophy of science has an illustrious history of attraction and
antipathy towards metaphysics. The latter was famously exemplified in
the Logical Positivist contention that metaphysical questions are
meaningless, but in the wake of the demise of Positivism, metaphysics
has found its way back into the philosophy of science. Increasingly,
questions about the nature of natural laws, kinds, dispositions, and
so on have taken a metaphysical cast. The metaphysics of science
commands significant attention in contemporary philosophy.

While many philosophers embrace the increased contact between
metaphysics and the philosophy of science, others are wary. Should
science (and its philosophical study) lead us into doing metaphysics?
If so, which metaphysical issues are genuine and which are illusory,
and how might we tell? Such questions dovetail with similar soul-
searching in metaphysics proper (sometimes under the banner of “meta-
metaphysics”, sometimes simply as methodology).

This conference will examine ground-level debates about metaphysics
within the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology, and
broader methodological questions about the role of metaphysics in the
philosophy of science. Participation is open and welcome from all
parties to these questions: from those who hold that metaphysics must
have a place within the philosophy of science, to those who hold it
should not.

PLENARY SPEAKERS
Craig Callender (University of California, San Diego)
Anjan Chakravartty (University of Toronto)
Katherine Hawley (University of St. Andrews)
Jenann Ismael (University of Arizona)
James Ladyman (University of Bristol)
Kyle Stanford (University of California, Irvine)
Michael Strevens (New York University)
Robert Wilson (University of Alberta)
C. Kenneth Waters (Minnesota)

CALL FOR PAPERS:
Essays of 4,000-5,000 words (30 minutes allotted for presentations)
concerning any aspect of metaphysics and the natural or social
sciences will be accepted for review until January 10, 2011. Please
include a short abstract (200 words or so), a few keywords, prepare
your essayfor blind review (do not include your name or other
identifying references in the document), and submit it in PDF format
here: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=mpsc2011

Notification by early February 2011.

If you are planning to attend the conference and would like to
identify yourself as a potential chair, please email the conference
address .

ORGANIZERS
Chris Haufe (University of Chicago)
Matthew H. Slater (Bucknell University)
Zanja Yudell (California State University, Chico)

Please direct general conference inquiries to mpsc2011@gmail.com

Race date: 14.8.2010
Official Finishing Time: 3:40:08 chip time, 3:40:47 gun time
Official Position: 515/6467
Race number: 2792

Last Saturday I ran my first marathon, the Helsinki City Marathon. My confidence was quite low as my training in July was inadequate due to travelling and brief illness. In addition the weather in Helsinki was rather hot & humid, apparently the temperature was around 27 degrees when I finished just before 7pm. Despite all this, I decided to set off at a rather optimistic pace (4:44min/km), aiming for a finishing time near 3:20h or so. It went a bit wrong. I managed to keep the pace up to the half marathon point, which I reached in 1:41:05 chip time, but by 27km my pace had dropped dramatically and I started to struggle. A key factor here was the fact that I didn’t get much liquid in during the first half — I tried to have a drink while running, but the cups you get from the drink stations aren’t really ideal for drinking & running. I really needed to get more liquid in, so I started to walk past the drinks stations, which cost me a lot of time. It worked though: I started to feel a little better by 37km and actually managed a half decent pace for a while. In fact, after the marathon my legs felt better than after many of my long runs, so they certainly could’ve taken a faster pace. All in all the race was a bit of a learning experience: you just shouldn’t set off too fast on a marathon.

At 7km, when everything was still ok... Thanks to my mum for the photo.

The organisation of the race in general was acceptable, but there were some major and several minor problems. The storage facilities were a joke, the start was insanely crowded (no starting pens) and people were jumping over the fences to even get there, and the finishing area had inadequate resources and was badly organised. I didn’t suffer from these things very severely, expect perhaps the overcrowded start, but it all left a bit of a bad taste about the event. Fortunately I had some great support along the way, with friends and relatives at strategic points and a couple of surprises as well. A special thanks to everyone who showed up!

I had been under the impression that the Helsinki marathon is a fairly flat and easy course, although I knew it had a few hills; the total height gain was 364m. As it turned out, it was not quite as easy as I had thought. The course passes some long bridges, which are not ideal for running, and there are a few rather steep hills as well, I think I had to walk at least one of them. For some reason the route is designed in such a way that it takes in a section of a cobbled street in the centre of Helsinki — I hope I don’t have to run on that type of surface any time soon! Other than that the route is quite nice and scenic, although there is some repetition.

Here is some more data, my official chip times and positions at different stages of the race:

10km 47:36 / 444
HM 1:41:05 / 380
30km 2:28:20 / 417

My best position was thus around the half marathon point and at 30km I was still at 3:30h pace, but I lost another 100 places in the last 12km! Disappointing, especially given that I’ve ran 38km in 3:08h in training, and I felt that I could’ve easily done the marathon in 3:30h then. Well, I could’ve probably done it now as well had I started at a slower pace. Still, I probably took everything out of the machine as my average heart rate was 170bpm and peaked at 190bpm. It’s interesting to note that for that 38km in training (in cool weather) my average heart rate was only 157bpm! So the weather really had an effect on the toughness of this race. Anyway, there’s plenty more data on my Garmin Connect page if anyone is interested. The Garmin recorded the course as 42.61km and the time as 3:40:45 (I started it with the gun).

So, that’s it, been there and ran that. Some people say that they have a lack of motivation after a marathon; running seems pointless after that target has been reached. Well, I think I want to shave off quite a bit from that marathon time before I feel that I’ve actually even done it properly, so plenty of goals to reach yet! My next proper race is the Middlesbrough 10k on September 5, and after that I’m running the Great North Run in Newcastle on September 19.