prior probability

Like our fellow literary blogger Luanne Castle, we love blog titles with the word “May” in them. (Check out Ms Castle beautiful blog here.) So, here is Part 2 of our reading list for the rest of the month of May (and for June):

1. The book “Inadequate Equilibria” by Eliezer Yudkowsky, one of our favorite contemporary intellectuals. (Indeed, one of our previous papers, Visualizing Probabilistic Proof, was inspired in large part by Yudkowsky’s Bayesian approach to evidence.)
2. “Emotional Sentiments” by Emma Rothschild. This book reinterprets the ideas of Adam Smith and the Marquis de Condorcet (two of our favorite figures from the Enlightenment era), so it is a must-read for us.
3. John Earman’s powerful defense and critique of Bayesian methods in “Bayes or Bust?“. In the introduction to his classic book, he writes: “I confess that I am a Bayesian–at least on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. *** On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, however, I have my doubts not only about the imperialistic ambitions of Bayesianism but also about its viability as a basis for … scientific inference. (On Sundays I try not to think about the matter.)” How could we not read this tome?

 

Moritz Stefaner is an artist specializing in data visualizations. Here is a description of one of his data art projects (see also the video summary below): “Today, we collectively and continuously document our city experience on social media platforms, shaping a virtual city image. Multiplicity reveals a novel view of this photographic landscape of attention and interests. How does Paris look as seen through the lens of thousands of photographers? What are the hotspots of attraction, what are the neglected corners? What are recurring poses and tropes? And how well do the published pictures reflect your personal view of the city?” Check out Mr Stefaner’s “Truth & Beauty Operations” website here.

We need to update our priors again! We have been reading Victor Goldberg’s 2006 book “Framing Contract Law” and have already posted some positive reviews of various chapters of his book. (See here, for example.) One of the major themes in the book is Professor Goldberg’s disdain (if not utter contempt) for “the good faith standard” in contract cases. To summarize Professor Goldberg’s position, courts do not apply the good faith standard evenly, for “good faith” is too vague a rule to police contract disputes. Initially, we agreed with Professor Goldberg’s devastating critique of the good faith standard, but the more we think about his critique, the more we realize that it is Goldberg who is wrong, not the judges! It turns out many contract disputes involve some form of “post-contractual opportunism.” (Indeed, there is an extensive academic literature about this problem. See image below for an example.) So, as good Bayesians, we are updating our position on the good faith standard and our review of Goldberg’s book. To the extent that opportunism is a genuine problem in many contractual relationships (and the reported cases confirm this observation), the good faith standard (though vague) is probably a good second-best judicial solution in response to the problem of post-contractual opportunism.

Credit: Carmella Merritt

Via The Economist (circa 2015): Continue reading →