From Andy Clark's "Extended Mind Redux":
Themewise, I was struck by the somewhat remarkable fact that about half the commentators thought the general line about extending the mind was plausible and even obvious, while about half thought it was implausible and perhaps even self-evidently false. In optimistic mode (which I mostly am) I take this as a good sign: as suggesting that there is indeed something worth thinking about here.
Philosophical Investigations 402:
For this is what disputes between Idealists, Solipsists and Realists look like. The one party attack the normal form of expression as if they were attacking a statement; the others defend it, as if they were stating facts recognized by every reasonable human being.
Clark also allows that perhaps he shouldn't be optimistic: "If I were feeling less upbeat, I might take it as a sign that I just hadn’t made the thought clear enough." I rather doubt "clarifications" of his thesis could help him here.
I preferred it when "The Stone" was publishing columns that were transparently insane, like the one about autism (and sex-ratios and the TLP). Then I could just shake my head at the NYT, rather than the profession.
Metablogical note: I have finally finished my paper on chapter 5 of Sebastian Roedl's "Self-Consciousness". Submitted the final version an hour or so ago. God willing, I'll have time to finally finish my McDowell Week notes come this weekend.