prior probability

(a) Folium of Descartes, (b) Witch of Agnesi, (c) Cubical Parabola, (d) Semicubical Parabola, (e) Strophoid, and (f) Cissoid of Diocles

That is the title of my 2007 paper on judicial senility, which I am showcasing today as part of my “Throwback Thursday” series in which I feature my most “vintage” scholarly works. As an aside, my four-page paper on “Senile Justices” is one of only two “empirical” papers that I have ever written. (I will revisit my other empirical paper in a future post. My other works are either theoretical or historical in nature.)

In summary, inspired by the work of historian David Garrow, my paper attempts to measure the true extent of the problem of judicial decrepitude among the members of the Supreme Court of the United States since the court’s inception in 1789. After collecting and presenting the relevant data, I conclude (contra Garrow) that the incidence of judicial decrepitude is relatively infrequent and rare.

That is the title of this report by Laura Tedesco and Rut Diamint, which was just published in Foreign Affairs. (Alas, annoyingly, the article is paywalled, but you can obtain a link to an ungated version of the article by clicking on the “continue reading” icon and then entering your email address.) In any case, the key to understanding what is happening in Cuba today is to recognize the undeniable fact that the Cuban people are ruled by a gerontic and obsolete military dictatorship.

Aside from status signalling, of course? According to this essay by Agnes Callard, “a university is a place where people help each other access the highest intellectual goods. A university is a place of heterodidacticism.” Robin Hanson, however, replies to Callard and corrects her here. According to Hanson, “… most complex social institutions just don’t have a single thing they are for; they are for many things.” Hanson 1, Callard 0.

Despite my repeated and public protests (see here, for example), I am scheduled to teach five in person sections (with up to 200 students per section) in the same small crowded classroom! To make matters worse, three of those sections meet back to back to back every other Tuesday from 4:30 pm to 8:50 pm, while the remaining two sections also meet back to back every other Thursday, from 4:30 pm to 7:20 pm, putting me and my students in harm’s way for another three hours. I have repeatedly requested a “reasonable accommodation” to space out my classes or move them outdoors, but to no avail. Alas, not only is my university insisting on holding such large-scale super-spreader gatherings; professors like me who refuse on public health grounds to convene them will themselves be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Worse yet, many of my colleagues have decided to stick their heads in the sand by remaining silent. I suppose this situation will change once enough students and faculty become sick or hospitalized; in the meantime, the only conclusion I can reach is that university administrators don’t give two bits about my health or that of my students.

Scientific American published its very first issue on this day (Aug. 28) in 1845. But what does it mean to think in “scientific” terms? To me, it means thinking in terms of probabilities and degrees of belief, not moral certainties, as well as open-mindedness and the willingness to revise one’s probabilities. What does “science” mean to you?