The Willies: Under Construction

After much soul-searching and procrastination, the Willies committee has decided to suspend operations.  As we were putting together the category list, we received an email laying out some concerns about handing out semi-serious Willies awards (like best book, best article of 2004-2005 etc.).  The author said (a) that it would harm the non-competitive spirit of the Garden, and (b) that most of us hadn't had time to read the books and articles that have come out that recently anyway.  I have my doubts about (a), but from personal experience I can vouch for (b).  Taking out the serious categories left us with a bunch of jokey categories many of which have been offered by Gardeners.  But while joke categories are great, it seemed silly to have an involved semi-formal nominating and voting process, and even sillier to then take the nominees to the big guns in the free will debate.   And so the 2nd Annual  Willies was put on hold.   Any suggestions about how (or whether) to resolve this problem are welcome, either here or via email to Manuel or me.   The good news is that the earlier post provoked some lively discussion that can hopefully be developed in the future. 

Comments

[John Fischer]

How about this category and nomination?

Most sensible blog post: "The Willies: Under Construction"

[Manuel]

Yeah, I just want to second what both John and Tamler said . . . it would be great to do a "Willies" award if we can figure out a sensible way to run things. My hope is that we can work something out. Any thoughts, Gardeners?

[Mike]

The idea is light and lots of fun. So whatever the format, it ought not to invite much grave concern. This might involve adding categories that no one could mistake for something important. Category 1: the best expression of libertarianism in free verse. Category 2: the best paper for compatiblism in free association. Category 3: Live free or Die: the best defense of Vermont's free secession from the union. Stuff like this.

[Kip Werking]

Some points:

1. Despite the friendly blog format, there is (at least I have noticed) an undenyable spirit of competition here. But sometimes competition can be a good thing.
2. For a sensible way to run things: I recommend we just count the email-votes (from anyone), and majority wins.
3. Although there has not been enough time to read all of the Agency Theory stuff from the last two years, I doubt that we (or at least I) will make significant progress in the next two years. Personally, I suspect that my choice of best article from the last two years, after reading 10 articles, would be the same as if I had read every article, This is so because I target articles which I expect (often for good reason) to be good, and I avoid articles which I expect (often for good reason) to be bad.

[Neil]

Knowledge is a distributed enterprise. Between us, we *have* read most of the literature. Not a lot is at stake, after all (I can't see anyone getting tenure on the basis of a Willie). Philosopher's annual lists the 10 best papers annually, across *all* subfields: I suspect that we're collectively as well qualified to assess the free will literature as the PA people are to assess the whole shebang. I'd be interested not so much in the winners of categories, as in a top 10 most important papers in the past 2 years (in case I've missed something really important).

And competition is not a bad thing: the community fine structure of a normal science generates knowledge via competition (inter alia): people trying to refute one another is conducive to better work.

[Tamler Sommers]

Actually Neil, at most top departments having a Willie on your mantlepiece vastly increases your chances for promotion. Look at last year's winners (Fischer, Pereboom, Watson, Kane, Wolf, William James). All of them now have tenure.