Who knew such a thing existed? And who would have guessed that if it did exist, it would exist in Belgium?
SynopsisThe Philosophy of Cricket encompasses a series of reflections upon the nature of cricket, its forms of practice, its history and its influence in shaping the human form physically, emotionally and morally. A recurring theme throughout is the interplay between the matter (what the game is) and spirit of cricket (ideals concerning how one plays the game). What are these ideals and how do they impinge upon cricket’s conditions of existence? Furthermore, is cricket’s ratio essendi exhausted by a set of prescriptive laws or does it encompass a broader ethos, a body of conventions and connotations, a history and tradition that bind the game to realities beyond its constitutive boundaries?
I think it was Louise Vigeant from whom I heard about this collection. If so, thanks Louise! If it was someone else, apologies and thanks. (If I was a real journo-blogger I’d have been taking notes at lunch so I wouldn’t have to make these disjunctive acknowledgments.) Here’s the full call for papers.
Submissions criteria
Contributions are accepted from a broad range of philosophical disciplines discussing issues relevant to the game of cricket. Possible themes include, but are certainly not limited to, the aesthetics of cricket; ethics in cricket; cricket and the nature of man; cricket and education; cricket and culture, etc. Topics related to broader philosophical themes, such as the phenomenon of sport in general, may also be accepted provided they are predominantly illustrated with examples from cricket. All submissions must be of a philosophical nature, meet high standards of rigour and display an obvious command of the language and subject matter.
Papers should be between 5000 and 8000 words in length, though longer papers of exceptional quality and focus may also be accepted. No papers should exceed 10000 words in length.
All submissions must be written in (British) English and should follow the MLA standards for footnotes, citations and bibliographical references.
Deadlines
Abstracts are to be received by 27 February 2004. The final deadline for submissions is 30 April 2004.
Contact
Contributions for review may be sent in electronic form to the editor:
Institute of Philosophy
Kardinaal Mercierplein 2
B-3000 Leuven
Belgium
+32 16 326356
+32 16 326311 (f)
UPDATE: Normblog suggests some topics for the collection below. Anyone who wants to write on them should send me their efforts, with appropriate credits to Norm. I think consequential vs deontological approaches to walking might be fun to work out. I think I can will the universalised rule “All batters should walk iff they are playing against Australia or Victoria”, which probably messes up the deontological solution.
It’s like a collaborative Ken Burns documentary.
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??
Aw Belgium, man! Belgium!
Sorry. Giving away my wasted teenage years there.
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..
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?
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.
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
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”
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
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review