1. That there is value in having philosophical ‘heroes’ who only make arguments on philosophical grounds and avoid anything that might look like arguing from authority or enabling of mobs.
2. That a danger is that NYT may lose the autonomy it needs to pursue truth.
I think I’m basically fine with #1, provided those arguments on philosophical grounds get made. Which seems in this case to have happened—you’ve clearly done more to help than you would have by only singing a petition.
I agree that #2 is a danger, but don’t see how the petition makes the danger worse. NYT already has lots of incentives it responds to beyond ‘seeking truth’ no matter how charitable we want to be, and all the petition does is alert them to some of their incentives.
This reply seems to be making two arguments:
1. That there is value in having philosophical ‘heroes’ who only make arguments on philosophical grounds and avoid anything that might look like arguing from authority or enabling of mobs.
2. That a danger is that NYT may lose the autonomy it needs to pursue truth.
I think I’m basically fine with #1, provided those arguments on philosophical grounds get made. Which seems in this case to have happened—you’ve clearly done more to help than you would have by only singing a petition.
I agree that #2 is a danger, but don’t see how the petition makes the danger worse. NYT already has lots of incentives it responds to beyond ‘seeking truth’ no matter how charitable we want to be, and all the petition does is alert them to some of their incentives.