On my re-post of my review of Plantinga’s book Where The Conflict Really Lies, Landon wrote:
I find it very strange that you have to “hope” that “EVEN [emphasis mine] fans of academic philosophy will agree that it is possible for a philosopher to screw up badly when writing about topics outside of his expertise…” as if this were somehow unlikely. Not only are most analytic philosophers not also fans of Plantinga, most academic philosophers think that Plantinga made a fool of himself with his work on evolution. There was quite a bit of coverage of it on the “industry” blogs, such as Leiter’s. Several leading analytic philosophers were sharply critical of Plantinga.
The more you talk about analytic philosophy, the more it seems that your time at Notre Dame gave you a very skewed view of the profession.
You know what? This is absolutely right, at least partially. I think many, though not all, professors at Notre Dame are guilty of not taking science seriously enough, but it was wrong of me to imply that this lack of respect for science is a problem with “fans of academic philosophy” generally.
Not that that’s the sole source of my skepticism about philosophy; see this post originally written my junior year of undergrad. But I do need to do some thinking about to what extent my experiences at Notre Dame tainted my view of the profession.