September 11, 2009
3QD Philosophy Prize 2009 Finalists
Hello,
The editors of 3QD have made their decision. The twenty semifinalists have been winnowed down to six, plus we have added three "wildcard" entries which we thought were deserving nominees that didn't make it past the voting round. Thanks again to all the participants. There was a lot of interesting stuff, and we discovered many interesting and great blogs through this contest. I hope our readers did too.
Once again, South Tyrolean graphic artist Carla Goller has provided a "trophy" logo that our finalists may choose to display on their own blogs. And if you like our site, please do add us to your blogroll!
So, here it is, the final list that I am sending to Professor Dan Dennett, who will select the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd prize winners: (in alphabetical order by blog name)
- 3 Quarks Daily: Penne For Your Thought
- Der Wille Zur Macht und Sprachspiele: Nietzsche's Causal Essentialism
- Grundlegung: Philosophy as Bildung
- Justin Erik Halldór Smith: The Fundamentals of Gelastics
- PEA Soup: Scanlon on Moral Responsibility and Blame
- The Immanent Frame: Immanent Spirituality
- Tomkow: Blackburn, Truth and other Hot Topics
- Underverse: Refuting "It," Thus
- Wide Scope: Emotions and Moral Skepticism
We'll announce the three winners on September 22, 2009.
Good luck!
Abbas
P.S. The editors of 3QD will not be making any comments on our deliberations, or the process by which we made our decision, other than to simply say that we picked what we thought were the best philosophy posts out of the semifinalists, and added three others that we liked.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 12:05 AM | Permalink
Comments
I love that line-up! This is exciting -- thanks for giving everyone an opportunity to find out more about the philosophically inclined blogosphere.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Sep 11, 2009 10:10:47 AM
For those keeping score at home, two of the top ten vote-getters made the final list.
Posted by: Asher Kay | Sep 11, 2009 10:19:58 AM
Asher, we gotta deal with it. My post was in the top six of the Science Writing Competition plebiscite, AND I write for this blog, AND the editors like me (I think), yet my post was not a finalist. They are looking for something very, very specific. They are not running a popularity contest.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Sep 11, 2009 10:30:52 AM
"They are looking for something very, very specific"
My guess at what that would be is "page hits", since that's the best reason to include voting when one is looking for something very specific in terms of content, style, perspective, etc.
It's not my intention to fault 3QD for this -- it's their prize to give.
Posted by: Asher Kay | Sep 11, 2009 10:50:35 AM
Seriously, why even bother with voting then? You should have just selected the posts you liked from the nominations and then send them off to Dennett. Now "voting" looks like some sort of posturing: "Look, we are so democratic, we let the people decide, well, not really, but it's our prize to give..."
And to put the post from your own blog at the top is quite rich as well - irony much? C'mmon now, I like this blog, it's awesome, don't ruin it for me with your ridiculous competitions where the only competition is between secret editors guided by secret motives. I know you're enjoying your popularity and all, but maybe you bit a bit more than you can chew?
Posted by: James H. | Sep 11, 2009 11:27:42 AM
James, maybe it's because I have a rare day with too little to do, but...here I go.
I hope you saw that the plebiscite phase of the competition is balanced by the editors saying they will choose wild card entries from anywhere in the blogosphere. This is a very clear notice that a popularity contest, or an exercise in cronyism, is not what they intend.
You will notice, too, that blogs with numerical values (3 quarks daily, 2 blowhards) show up first on any alphabetized blog roll, or any other kind of list. Daniel Dennett will be choosing winners, and he is doubtless a bit beyond letting the order of entries influence him, especially if he deeply suspects it's alphabetical order.
Asher, this is an exercise in editorial taste, not page hits quantification. That's why the process is meaningful. Otherwise, a winner could simply be announced.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Sep 11, 2009 1:06:53 PM
"Asher, this is an exercise in editorial taste, not page hits quantification. That's why the process is meaningful. Otherwise, a winner could simply be announced."
I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm saying that if it's an exercise in editorial taste, with very specific but unspecified criteria, then the most obvious reason to have a vote at all is to generate page hits for 3QD.
Posted by: Asher Kay | Sep 11, 2009 1:58:02 PM
If this is then an "exercise in editorial taste," then it would have been easier for the editors simply to choose the list of posts they liked and announce the winner. What is the point of having nominations and voting when in the end it's an editorial decision without any explicit statement as to the criteria? Why play this silly game of democracy when in the end it's a decision of the few (ultimately one, of course)? This makes it look at though the editors were lazy and asked for nominations because they themselves don't read philosophical blogs, and they did not want to go through a list of nominees to determine the quality of work, so they asked for people to "vote" so that they can have a manageable number of posts to choose from - how is that a competition at all? If you don't want a popularity contest, don't create one and ask people to announce it and participate in it. I have to agree with Asher, this looks like a cheap trick to advertise the blog and get some hits. Nothing wrong with it, of course, just don't get on a high horse and call it a real "competition" and pretend that people's votes really mattered in the end.
Posted by: James H. | Sep 11, 2009 2:38:16 PM
James H.,
I don't know about page hits here, but I liked the science contest and this one because it took me to so many other blogs in science and philosophy that I would never have "stumbled upon" otherwise. So many good blog essays chosen by many different people, and for me, that's made it all worthwhile.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Sep 12, 2009 1:56:30 PM
Post a comment