Well, with the promise of monies and fame, I have begun a rewrite of the Singapore paper for its inclusion in a book based upon the workshop.
We’re been told that if our papers come in before the 30th of this month in an acceptable (read: publishable) form, then we will get an honorarium ((That’s ‘monies for publication’ for you plebs.)).
Financial reward is not particularly common for paper publication; we are meant to be in the game not for wealth but to reward our fellow human beings. Still, money in this case is a good way to get people to rewrite their papers post the conference/workshop. Everyone intends to do a polish on a paper post its airing and yet very few people actually do it in anything like a speedy fashion. Promising the participant a fiscal reward… Well, that does inspire one to do a little work here and now.
My rewrite focuses on distinguishing rumours from gossip; I think there’s a lot of muddied thinking on the distinction and from a conversation with one of the attendees/organisers I think I need to explain quite explicitly why the philosophical distinction (from Tony Coady) is the way to go forward on the issue. I realise that I’ll be going against some of the Sociological and Social Psychological literature on the topic, but sometimes that is what a philosopher has to do.
We have to earn our mantle of arrogance somehow, you know.
I’m hoping to get the draft rewrite done by the end of next week; if anyone wants to volunteer to have a look over it for the purposes of seeing whether it makes sense to a non-philosopher, comment here. The book is aimed at the strategic communications crowd and it would be handy to see whether the paper, without me being there to explain it, makes sense to those outside me field.
Also, I think I’ve had too much coffee today…