* Roberta Ballerin, Ruth Barcan Marcus, at the SEP
* Gabriele Gava, Peirce on Kant's Refutation of Idealism (PDF)
* Christopher Byrne, Aristotle on Plato's Forms as Causes (PDF)
* David Polansky, The battles over beginnings, on Machiavelli, at "Aeon"
* Matthew Pianalto, Patience and Practical Wisdom (PDF)
* John Robson and Rebecca Wallbank, Aesthetic Testimony, at the SEP
* David A. Ciepley, The Juridical Person of the State: Origins and Implications (PDF)
* Daniel Neumann, Descartes' Experience of Freedom (PDF)
* Jennifer Ouellette and Sean Carroll, The Ars Technica guide to time travel in the movies
* Rachel Cohon, The Moral Sentiments in Hume and Adam Smith (PDF)
* Nathan Salmón, Fictitious Existence versus Nonexistence (PDF)
* Elizabeth VanKammen and Michael Rea, A Dilemma for Conferralism (PDF)
* Last Positivist, Facts vs. Opinions, at "The Sooty Empiric":
The American educational system teaches children to distinguish between "facts" and "opinions". A recent paper in Misinformation Review has even made mastery of this distinction a marker of civic political competence. Per this paper facts are those statements that "can be proved or disproved with objective evidence" whereas opinions are those statements that "depend on personal values and preferences". I think this is a bogus distinction and should not have any role as a marker of political competence or as part of children's education.
