There's no discussion yet in the comments, but the question is a good one. How do you prepare a paper for blind refereeing when you're responding to criticism of your own work?
There have been a lot of discussions of refereeing over at Brian Leiter’s blog over the last few weeks. I think many of these discussions suffer from a misapprehension of how refereeing works. In particular, many people are equating the time it takes for them to get a verdict on their paper with the amount of time it takes for a referee to write a report. This equation would work iff the following steps took zero time.
John Doris and Jesse Prinz have a nice review of Anthony Appiah's book Experiments in Ethics over at Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
The review focuses on Appiah's discussion of character and of ethical intuitions and then concludes with a suggestion that 'empirical work demands a reconstruction of morality.'
Interesting argument from Littlejohn over at Think Tonk for the conclusion that a plausible principle about evidence leads to a surprising skeptical result.
