“Daniel”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002516.html has been worrying about sadistic angels with infinitary choices. But we can get puzzles in the ballpark of probability 0 problems without worrying about infinity. Just thinking about bets on things you (take yourself to) know gets the troubles started.
Posts by author:
Brian
If “Matt Yglesias”:http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/09/blogosphere_tri.html is going to use philosophical technical jargon in political debates, he could at least try to be pedantic about it.
bq. After CBS ran the story, the conservative side of the ‘sphere came up with dozens of purported debunkings of their authenticity, almost all of which turned out to be more purported than debunking. Then after a few days of back-and-forth, traditional reporters at The Washington Post came out with a more careful, more accurate, more actually-debunking story. The folks at PowerLine and LGF are, at best, Gettier cases, they didn’t do any of the actual debunking. Instead, it was done by reporters working for major papers.
But these aren’t really Gettier cases, because Gettier cases are instances of *justified* true belief that aren’t knowledge, while the beliefs of the folks at Powerline and LGF were *unjustified* false beliefs.
I was pleased to see this paragraph from “Matthew Yglesias”:http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/09/ipower_terror_p.html.
bq. As a journalist, I keenly feel the pain of the generalist. I find myself in Mead’s shoes all the time — needing to somehow touch on a range of material that I am perfectly aware I don’t understand nearly as well as those people who’ve spent years focusing in on it narrowly. I like to think that having studied philosophy as an undergraduate is a reasonably good preparation for such a task. Obviously, I never wind up writing an article about meta-ethics or the way structurally similar issues about reductionism pop up in diverse areas (insofar as I know a lot about anything, it’s these things), but what philosophy fundamentally teaches you about (especially as an undergraduate when you don’t really have the time to master any particular sub-area) is how to spot an unsound argument, irrespective of the topic of discussion. That’s a useful and generally applicable thing. And I think we’ll see it pop up again and again in this discussion.
I like to think that some of the specific things I teach in undergraduate classes have relevance to what my students go on to do, but ultimately I’d be happy if most of the students picked up just the kind of skills Matt is talking about. One of the side effects of philosophy being so abstract and disconnected from everyday considerations is that to do well at it, you have to be good at reasoning about unfamiliar topics. And in the modern economy that’s a very valuable skill.
I had always thought there was a dialect of English where _he_ could be used as a gender-neutral pronoun. That is, I always thought there was a dialect of English where one could say (1) without presupposing that the person we hire next will be male.
(1) The person we hire next will be able to teach whatever courses he wants.
I basically agree with everything “Daniel”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002359.html and “Atrios”:http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_08_15_atrios_archive.html#109286835802888918 said about “Alex Tabarrok’s post on renting”:http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/08/economic_founda.html, but I just wanted to add one anecdote to support Daniel’s side of the story.
As most of you reading this outside America will know, the 2004 Olympics have begun. Of course in America none of this has been seen yet, because it is technologically impossible or something to broadcast live from Greece. So the film of the opening ceremony is being sent by carrier pigeon to New York, where it will arrive in a few hours to be shown.
Now I don’t really care when or where the opening ceremony is shown. But I do care about when and where they show Olympic events in which Australians have a decent chance of doing well, especially swimming. And if one is stuck in the televisual hell-hole that is the United States, the answer is “Nowhere live, and unknown time and location on tape delay.” Because NBC refuses to show any swimming events live, and refuses (as far as I can tell) to say just when it will show events on tape delay, it is practically impossible to tell how much of a commitment will be needed to actually see Australians (or anyone else you might be interested in) in action. If you’re lucky NBC will, just like a cable company, say that the event you want will turn up sometime in a 4 hour interval. Just why Americans tolerate this kind of behaviour from a TV station is a little unclear, but I can’t imagine it would be possible to get away with such behaviour anywhere else in the western world.
“Brian Leiter”:http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/bleiter/archives/001738.html passes on the sad news that John Passmore has died. “Here”:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10266391%255E30417,00.html is _The Australian’s_ obituary. If any others appear I’ll try to update this post with links to them.
This is sort of a follow up to “Brian Leiter’s post”:http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/bleiter/archives/001665.html on philosophy blogs in Newsweek. And equally belated.
Last week the Sydney Morning Herald ran an article by Paul Davies about “the possibility that our universe is a simulation”:http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/21/1090089219062.html. What was interesting, to me at least, was that the article cited Nick Bostrom’s argument to this effect in _The Philosophical Quarterly_. (An online version of Bostrom’s paper is “here”:http://www.simulation-argument.com/.) It isn’t every day you see a philosophy journal cited in the morning newspaper. Sadly Davies didn’t cite, or even talk about, my “refutation of Bostrom’s argument”:http://brian.weatherson.net/sims.pdf also in _The Philosophical Quarterly_. So I thought I may as well take the chance to revisit that debate and say what I thought was most important about it. Anyone who wants to write to the SMH making either of the points below is much more than welcome!
(Blog history note: I first found out about Bostrom’s paper through a chain of links starting with “Instapundit”:http://www.instapundit.com/archives/003465.php, which probably makes my paper the first philosophy paper to be the result of a blog entry.)
Via “Justin Leiber”:http://www.hfac.uh.edu/phil/leiber/jleiber.htm, here’s “a playable version”:http://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.html of the “Monty Hall Problem”:http://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/montybg.html. It’s simultaneously a lesson in decision theory and in the perils of small sample sizes – my first two plays I lost the car by switching.
I’ve been spending the afternoon alternating between writing a syllabus for a decision theory course and websurfing. So naturally I’ve been drawn to web sites about decision theory and game theory. And I was struck by this question “David Shoemaker”:http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2004/06/teaching_or_exp.html raises – are games played in the classroom covered by rules on human experimentation?
* It wasn’t intended as a follow-up to our earlier discussion on private vs public health-care performance, but nevertheless in that context it was very helpful for “Chris Shiel”:http://backpagesblog.com/weblog/archives/000537.html to link to “this paper”:http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf (PDF) on how well, or as it turns out badly, the US does on health-care outcomes.
* I missed this when it was posted a week ago, but if you’re still interested in this stuff “Geoff Nunberg”:http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html has a very good dissection of that study by Groseclose and Milyo purporting to show liberal media bias.
* And “Ben Bradley”:http://mt.ektopos.com/orangephilosophy/archives/000563.html wants reader input to help choose a murder victim. Purely for academic purposes.
Some philosophers, your humble narrator occasionally included, get irritated when people, especially intro ethics students, focus on what we take to be irrelevant details of what are meant to be serious, if somewhat improbably grisly, examples. But really we’re not upset about the lack of philosophical sophistication our students shown, just about how stylishlessly they complain. If all our intro ethics students were like “Fafnir and Giblets”:http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2004_07_11_fafblog_archive.html#108973435683602830 I can’t imagine we’d ever be so irritated.
I was looking over the forms I’ll have to fill in to get my latest US Visa, and I was struck by this question on the DS-157 form.
bq. Do You Have Any Specialized Skills or Training, Including Firearms, Explosives, Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical Experience?
Since I’m applying for a specialist skill visa, you’d kinda think I should answer “Yes” just reading the first part of the question. But I think the words after “Including” rather change the meaning of it all. At least I think I think they do. I hope I can’t get brought up on perjury charges for trying to hide my extensive philosophical skills from consular officials.
Jonathan Ichikawa, who’s been doing an excellent job maintaining the “philosophy papers blog”:http://opp.weatherson.net while I’ve been gallavanting around the world, recently posted the “following comment”:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/Blog/Archives/cat_ethics.html about _Spider-Man 2_. (Warning mild spoilers ahead)
At first I thought this was a bad typo, but perhaps it’s just a quirk of American English that I hadn’t noticed before.
bq. Though few would argue that children should be protected from exposure to Internet pornography, COPA, the law designed to protect them has been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. (“NewsFactor Network”:http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Supreme-Court–First-Amendment-Covers-Online-Porn&story_id=25722.)
In my idiolect, _argue that p_ means put forward arguments in support of the truth of _p_. Here it seems (unless I’m really misinterpreting the paragraph) to mean something like dispute that _p_. Is that what the phrase means in American?