I thought Laura Snyder's Confirmation for a Modest Realism was an interesting discussion of Whewell's notion of consilience.(The link is to Google's cache; you can get to the original Word document by following the link at the top of the page.) I'm all for scientific realists engaging in Whewellian projects, and the one suggested in this paper seems promising. In reading it I also realized that I had misstated a claim about Whewell in one of my recent essentialism posts; I'll have to fix it.
The Philosopher's Carnival is up at "Heaven Tree". I didn't see much that I thought was interesting, but I would recommend the discussion between Clayton and Lewis at "Hesperus/Phosphorus": Why I am an evidentialist.
The History Carnival is up at "History : Other." The Carnival of Bad History is up at "Ahistoricality." In both cases there are some great posts. I particularly recommend An Unexpected Analogy at "Orac Knows".
I think I may have noted it, but since I never got back to reading it, I'll note it again, to have a link handy: the 112th Christian Carnival is up at "Adam's Blog". The series on the relation between neural states and thought at "Thinking Christian" is interesting. The type of argument being discussed can be very tricky; but it's a very modest version, and so, I think, has something to be said for it, and the discussion is quite good. It's an argument for substance dualism, and I'm not a substance dualist but a hylomorphist, so I have my disagreements. But I recommend it.
Since I've been linking to so many carnivals, I keep intending to post a link to the second State of the Ummah, the Muslim Carnival; but it keeps not being there. Well, that's real life. In any case, it's supposed to show up at towards God is our journey any time now.
Dr. Wafa Sultan has recently become a popular (and unpopular) voice criticizing Islam; but is she hitting the right points? I thought Dr. Hesham Hessaballa's post on her at "God, Faith, and a Pen" provided a fair and balanced criticism of her approach. It's also a sharp rebuke to some of her less balanced critics, as much by example as by word.
Miriam Burnstein gives us the 'rules' for a neo-Victorian novel, a world in which the evil methodistical Evangelicals do battle with Truly Egalitarian Heroes and Heroines who are Instinctively Admired by Oppressed Populations. There are also Prostitutes with Unusual Talents and Wretched Slums. It's almost on the way to being nearly an approximation of Dickensian. Quite amusing; well worth reading. The rules, I mean.
I'm reading with interest Kevin Timpe's paper,"Grace and Controlling What We Do Not Cause."