I’m glad you got more out of the argument after reading those sections. I agree that “timing problem” is not the best description for the argument. Calling it “the timing problem” was a relic of an earlier version of the argument that was more about timing. After submitting the paper and getting a revise and resubmit from the journal, I got some feedback from my supervisor that made me realize timing wasn’t the real issue. So, I changed the argument to make it less timing-based. However, I worried that changing the title of the argument and of the paper for a resubmission might disqualify the paper for further consideration (because it might count as a different paper at that point). Maybe that was overly conservative. I might have risked coming up with a new name for the argument and paper if I thought the name of the argument would deter people from reading the paper.
As for your critique after reading the sections, you’ve picked up on the issue I know I need to elaborate on! I’m working on a paper that is precisely about this, and have been since late last year. If you don’t mind, I might reach out to you for feedback once I have a finished draft.
I appreciate the feedback about the abstract, but the abstract is set in stone at this point.
Ah yes, I suspected that the incentive structure of academic philosophy and publishing in a philosophy journal was a big part of the issue here.
I’d be happy to help with your next paper if you want to talk through the ideas. I’d be less excited to contribute if you’ve already finished a draft. I feel that collaboration is more useful in the idea development stage than the polishing stage. At that point, there’s a lot of real sunk cost so outside contributions on the important parts of the argument become much less useful. Actually, I think that’s exactly what you described in being unable to really take your advisor’s good advice into account in framing this paper because it came too late in the process.
Just to clarify, I did change the argument after meeting with my supervisor, which is reflected in the final published draft. He said he didn’t think timing was the issue, so I figured out a better way to word the argument. The things I didn’t change were the argument title and paper title. I left “the timing problem” as the name for those, even though the argument wasn’t as obviously about timing anymore, because I thought changing the names might be a problem (and it’s entirely possible I was wrong about that). I thought that’s what you had noticed: that the name of the argument didn’t fully suit the argument itself. That’s because I changed the argument but not the name of it.
Yes, I understood all of that and that’s what I was referring to.
That change of argument but not title or abstract were exactly why I found the post so frustrating. The abstract didn’t actually give a good argument, because you’d changed the central argument but couldn’t change the title and didn’t change the abstract that much. I suspected that the practices and incentives of academic philosophy were somehow at fault. They were.
I’m glad you got more out of the argument after reading those sections. I agree that “timing problem” is not the best description for the argument. Calling it “the timing problem” was a relic of an earlier version of the argument that was more about timing. After submitting the paper and getting a revise and resubmit from the journal, I got some feedback from my supervisor that made me realize timing wasn’t the real issue. So, I changed the argument to make it less timing-based. However, I worried that changing the title of the argument and of the paper for a resubmission might disqualify the paper for further consideration (because it might count as a different paper at that point). Maybe that was overly conservative. I might have risked coming up with a new name for the argument and paper if I thought the name of the argument would deter people from reading the paper.
As for your critique after reading the sections, you’ve picked up on the issue I know I need to elaborate on! I’m working on a paper that is precisely about this, and have been since late last year. If you don’t mind, I might reach out to you for feedback once I have a finished draft.
I appreciate the feedback about the abstract, but the abstract is set in stone at this point.
Ah yes, I suspected that the incentive structure of academic philosophy and publishing in a philosophy journal was a big part of the issue here.
I’d be happy to help with your next paper if you want to talk through the ideas. I’d be less excited to contribute if you’ve already finished a draft. I feel that collaboration is more useful in the idea development stage than the polishing stage. At that point, there’s a lot of real sunk cost so outside contributions on the important parts of the argument become much less useful. Actually, I think that’s exactly what you described in being unable to really take your advisor’s good advice into account in framing this paper because it came too late in the process.
Just to clarify, I did change the argument after meeting with my supervisor, which is reflected in the final published draft. He said he didn’t think timing was the issue, so I figured out a better way to word the argument. The things I didn’t change were the argument title and paper title. I left “the timing problem” as the name for those, even though the argument wasn’t as obviously about timing anymore, because I thought changing the names might be a problem (and it’s entirely possible I was wrong about that). I thought that’s what you had noticed: that the name of the argument didn’t fully suit the argument itself. That’s because I changed the argument but not the name of it.
Yes, I understood all of that and that’s what I was referring to.
That change of argument but not title or abstract were exactly why I found the post so frustrating. The abstract didn’t actually give a good argument, because you’d changed the central argument but couldn’t change the title and didn’t change the abstract that much. I suspected that the practices and incentives of academic philosophy were somehow at fault. They were.