We've come along way since the comical debut (and the backlash it generated) and "the armchair bullshit masquerading as philosophy" that followed.  The NY Times editors did realize they had a quality problem, and began soliciting contributions independently of their benighted series moderator.  In the intervening months, we had a number of reasonable contributions by competent philosophers, ranging from Martha Nussbaum to Timothy Williamson to Galen Strawson.   Cooperating with the "On the Human" forum at the National Humanities Center blog also brought in some substantive blog postings on philosophical topics.    Oddly, several "Stone" blog slots have been given over to non-philosophers not really writing about philosophy, but this week, the Times hit a new low with a lecturer in French at Cambridge University named Andy Martin (who, I gather, is a friend of Critchley's) explaining that philosophers are autistic, and that the dearth of women in philosophy is due to the fact that autism is more common in men.  Seriously.  This bit of venal stupidity provoked some sharp and apt comments from philosophers.  Here is Jonathan Cohen (UC San Diego):

I'm sorry to say this column has sunk to a new low with this sophomoric, ill-informed, and offensive piece of gibberish.

The column is perhaps most deeply offensive to those with autism, whose cognitive/social challenges are complex and genuine; it is just insulting for Martin to dismiss the condition as a mere shortage of social grace. (One obvious clue to the fatuousness of the proposal is that it is so obviously inapplicable to more severe/low-functioning cases — Martin bizarrely excludes these at the outset, but one would have thought there should be a continuous range, not completely disjoint phenotypic types.)

It is almost equally offensive to philosophers in its suggestion that the field rests on a pathological failure of understanding. I don't even know where to start with that. And, of course, the whole thing gets started with a tired, jejune reading of the Tractatus that one expects from inexperienced freshmen, but not adult scholars.

The psychology of autism and the interpretation of the Tractatus (not to mention philosophy as a whole!) are serious areas of intellectual concern on which there exist vast literatures written by many thoughtful figures. If Andy Martin doesn't wish to engage seriously with these materials, that's fine. But then he might refrain from giving voice to this kind of uninformed, free-associative, and ultimately offensive riffing on these subjects.

In my view, this piece also represents a lapse of editorial oversight. Among many other tasks, editors are charged with enforcing standards of intellectual seriousness and moral sensitivity. I'm sorry to say that this piece fails — and fails obviously — on both fronts.

 And Louise Antony (U Mass/Amherst):

This post was irresponsible, not only for Martin's casual "diagnosis" of dead philosophers as autistic, nor just for his glib speculations about philosophers overall, but for the breathtaking inference with which Martin ends the piece: the reason there are so few women in philosophy is that there are not enough autistic women! It is very difficult for many of the men in my field to even countenance the possibility that bias against women is still a potent force in our field, since they believe their intelligence and training as philosophers renders them immune from the irrationalities that afflict lesser beings. There is a kind of "blindness" in Martin's and my field, but it isn't autism.

UPDATE:  With 350 votes cast, a pretty steady pattern in the vote distribution has emerged:

What should the NY Time do with its philosophy blog series?

I'll let it run a bit longer.