Mr. McMullan:
Correct me if I am wrong (because I’ve thought of this listening to Stefan lately), but Stefan works in philosophy, in particular, in choice and preference. While we work in truth, decidability, and law regardless of choice and preference. While we might argue in favor of minimum divergence from decidability under natural law, wouldn’t philosophical choice provide individuals with personal counsel where we would generally provide political counsel? (If you catch my meaning.) We do the via negativa (what not to do) leaving open the field of what one might choose to do … for the application of personal philosophy outside those negativa bounds.

I’ve been saying for a long time that we don’t do philosophy, we do science, but that the demarcation between philosophy and science wasn’t fully possible until our work. But it seems that for practical purposes we label ourselves as doing philosophy just for the sake of ease of communication.

I’ve been happy seeing Stefan back in the game because there is a need for it, and when people ask us we say that’s not our business. We don’t do preferable we do true and decidable. We only suggest you might prefer the decidable because it minimizes negative consequences. ;). That’s different from the choice of positivas which might seek to maximize the positive consequences. Yes? No? 😉