Comments on: Philosophy of Cricket

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:02:22 +0000

I’m not sure about the assumption Gatting won’t be bowled if he chooses the right stroke is justified! The linked paper on the Holmes-Moriarty problem is very interesting. I wasn’t at all thinking of incompleteness or undecidability results when I wrote my paper, so I suspect if there are good objections from that angle I’ll have to scramble quite a bit to meet them. When I wrote that I was more concerned with arguing against those who thought the existence of Keynesian uncertainty implied the existence of some alternative non-Bayesian account of rational action. I probably don’t have as much to say about those who just want fewer constraints on rational action, rather than different constraints. But that’s just what the (non)-solution to the H-M problem suggests – we just shouldn’t be looking for rules of rationality around here, because nothing is both optimal and implementable, and rationality rules as traditionally conceived have both of those features. The surprise exam variant is pretty interesting I think. I’ll have to go back and read that literature, but I don’t remember there being much written about the case where the teacher promises two exams, and says they’ll both be surprises. Given how many of the solutions are held together with fraying bits of string, I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t generalise to that case.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:03:32 +0000

OKeydokey, Mr (Dr/Professor) Weatherson, one suggestion coming up, and it’s even in your general area of expertise … The Bowler’s Dilemmas 1. (easy) Malcolm Marshall is allowed to bowl two bouncers per over. Furthermore, one can assume that he will only bowl the bouncer if it comes a surprise (otherwise, he’ll be hooked). Therefore, he can’t bowl his bouncers on the fifth and sixth balls of the over, as you know they’re coming. But that means, by mathematical induction, that he can’t bowl them on the third or fourth balls either, as this won’t be a surprise given that you know they’re not coming on balls five and six. It’s the surprise exam paradox, applied to bowling. 2. (More difficult). Warne is bowling to Gatting. If Warne is bowling the leg-break, the correct thing to do is to come down the wicket. If it’s the googly, however, the only safe thing to do is sweep. Let us first say that Gatting will certainly be bowled if he tries to sweep the leg-break or come down the wicket to the googly, and will certainly score four if he chooses the right stroke. Let us further say that neither player can adopt a mixed strategy; if they try to do so, the requirement to randomise every time introduces a delay to their action which is fatal. Let us also assume (fairly enough) that Gatting has no chance whatever of picking Warne. It can be shown (it’s a version of the Holmes-Moriarty Problem that so long as Gatting and Warne can be modelled as Turing Machines, the twin decision problems (leg-break/googly) and (come down/sweep) are formally undecidable. I mention this because Keynes’ beauty contest is a generalised version of the Holmes-Moriarty problem and I was going to use this as the basis of an objection to your Economica paper on uncertainty in Keynes. cheers dd

By: rea

rea — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:22:49 +0000

Well, as anyone who spends time around toddlers who like Disney movies is well aware, there IS a philosophy of Cricket: “When you get in trouble and you don’t know right from wrong Give a little whistle! Give a little whistle! When you meet temptation and the urge is very strong Give a little whistle! Give a little whistle! Not just a little squeak, pucker up and blow And if your whistle’s weak, yell, “Jiminy Cricket!” Right! Take the straight and narrow path And if you start to slide Give a little whistle! Give a little whistle! And always let your conscience be your guide”

By: David

David — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:42:52 +0000

Phil of Religion for cricket: Whether God can throw a googly so convoluted that God cannot hit it? Call this “the Paradox of the Googly”. For the googly uninitiated: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/cricket/skills/newsid_3207000/3207939.stm

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:00:16 +0000

I’ve been trying everything I know to find a decent topic, and not coming up with anything. There’s obviously lots of general issues that are relevant (e.g. events, language, aesthetics, etc) but I couldn’t think of any way of making anything especially relevant to cricket. Any ideas would be much appreciated! If I do have an idea of my own I will definitely submit it.

By: harry

harry — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:22:39 +0000

Mike Marqusee and CLR James, north american Trotskyists both; and the authors of the two best books on the game (IMHO). CLR even has a claim to being a philosopher of sorts. And its the Flemish part of Belgium, so all is explained—Dutch speakers being the best cricketers outside the British ex-colonies, right? But Brian, are you going to submit? I’ve been thinking about this sicne I saw your post, and find myself unable to think of anything to write philosophically about cricket. You?

By: David Tiley

David Tiley — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:33:10 +0000

I can imagine a bunch of government officials drinking tea and eating dusty Flemish biscuits and brainstorming: 1. in may there is no sport – its late winter, too early in spring. 2. the outside world is a slimey thawing mess. 3. they need a conference. 4. they need a conference with many many many people, from far away places. 5. many people immerse themselves totally in cricket, so it is like unto a religion. 6. many of these people write about cricket like unto they are writing the Fifth Epistle to the Ephesians, with googlies standing in for the exposed hair of unmarried women in church. 7. such a conference would be obsessive, well attended and peaceful. 8. find a group of academics and give them a grant…. Big mistake. Big, Big mistake. You should see my cricketfanatic friends talking about the game. And Belgian beer is strong..

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:03:42 +0000

Aw Belgium, man! Belgium! Sorry. Giving away my wasted teenage years there.

By: Anarch

Anarch — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 05:49:02 +0000

Given that one of the most insightful books I’ve ever read on cricket was by expatriate American Communist Mike Marqusie (sp?), I’m not all that surprised. …but BELGIUM??

By: sidereal

sidereal — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:03:12 +0000

It’s like a collaborative Ken Burns documentary.