PEA Soup

Bleg: Jounals that welcome commentary/discussion pieces?

Hi everyone, and a special wave to our new member Mark Timmons!

When graduate students ask me about publishing, I often suggest they start by submitting a tight discussion/commentary piece.  The trouble, however, is that I don't know which journals welcome them.  Ethics, of course.  And APQ and AJP, I think. But which others?  So, with your much appreciated help, maybe we can generate a couple useful lists.  And so:

1. Which journals welcome discussions/commentaries on works they've published?  

2. Which jounals also welcome discussions/commentaries on works published elsewhere?

From Ought to Is

Dear Soupers,

Do you enjoy puzzles? Yeah? Well then, let me share one with you.  John Basl (Northeastern University) and I have had some fruitful conversations about it; and we have some views about how to address it (and some views about how not to); but in the spirit of collective inquiry and intellectual theft let me take this opportunity to solicit your initial responses.

The puzzle might be construed either in terms of rationality or theoretical justification, but it is roughly as follows:

 Why are we permitted to revise our moral/normative/evaluative beliefs in light of non-moral beliefs but not vice versa?

Indeed, while it’s clear we are often guilty of sub-consciously shaping the facts to fit our evaluative commitments (e.g. the powerful correlations between political ideology “climate skepticism”, 911 conspiracy theories, and beliefs about the president’s religion and birthplace), we all disavow this a proper way to form our non-moral beliefs.As obvious as this may seem, the puzzle is how to best explain why this is so and then sorting out what the implications may be for meta-ethics, moral epistemology, and even epistemology more generally....