prior probability

The editors of GQ recently published this list of 20 overrated books (as well as a corresponding list of 20 underrated books). We went through their list and are by and large in complete agreement with their selections. Here’s just one example:

A couple of days ago, we posted a list of our mid-April readings. Now that we’ve read the first three items on our list, it’s time to begin sharing our thoughts with our loyal readers. Today, let’s start with Paras Chopra’s short essay “Philosophy Is Politics,” one of the best and most readable essays we’ve read explaining why there is no progress in philosophy. Among other things, Chopra harkens back to Wittgenstein and talks about the problem of language. Words can mean different things to different people, and philosophical words and concepts are notoriously slippery and open-ended. More fundamentally, Chopra claims that philosophers preoccupy themselves with nonsense questions, that is, questions whose answers are not testable. Consider the problem of free will. Is there any way of confirming (or better yet, falsifying) the existence of our free will? And even if there were such a way of testing this philosophical concept, would the answer matter? Here is my favorite sentence from Chopra’s essay: “What matters isn’t whether there’s free will or not, the real question should be how differently would I live my life if I knew the answer.” (Same goes with questions of morality. Most people might sincerely believe that lying is morally wrong (at least in most cases; there are always clever exceptions), but does this belief, however sincere, by itself reduce the overall level of deception among the population?)

But why is philosophy like politics? After all, philosophers are engaged in rational discussion bounded by the rules of logic. In the domain of politics, by contrast, disagreements are settled either by force or by majority rule (or by some other voting rule), and just because a dictator promulgates a decree or a majority of elected officials vote in favor of some law, by itself, carries no epistemic weight. A different dictator or a different ruling coalition might have decided the matter differently. Nevertheless, according to Chopra, philosophers are really engaged in a kind of higher-level politics (our term, not his): “The reason there’s no agreement on questions of morality, liberty, free will, etc. is because these topics explore how a human ought to live…. So everyone has a pet-theory for these philosophical questions, some are sophisticated, others are naive but none is ‘objectively’ true. The victory of your theory over another is a matter of convincing others that your version is better. And that’s a necessarily political act.” (By this measure, isn’t science just another form of higher-level politics as well?) If you are fascinated by these questions, do read the whole thing … We would love to be persuaded as to why Chopra is wrong!

Rev. Thomas Bayes died on this day in 1761 at the age of 59. Below the fold is a summary of his life and work via the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica [with edits by us in brackets]: Continue reading →

Updated 4/17: Here’s what we will be reading (and watching) this week:

1. A short essay by Paras Chopra titled “Philosophy Is Politics.”
2. Chapters 3 & 4 of Victor Goldberg’s book “Framing Contract Law.”
3. A legal theory paper by Christina Mulligan titled “Diverse Originalism.”
4. A voting theory paper by Alex Tabarrok and Lee Spector on the 1860 Presidential Election: “Would the Borda Count Have Avoided the Civil War.”
5. On TV: Remembering Dan Markel.

Image Credit: loman

What are you waiting for Paul Ryan? In our humble estimation, it’s finally time for the U.S. House of Representatives to consider drawing up a formal article of impeachment against 45. Why? Because the President has no constitutional authority to launch strikes against Syria. (Although the President is the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, only the Congress has the power to declare war.) Our loyalty should be to the Constitution, not to whoever happens to be in office. (By the way, isn’t napalm a chemical weapon?)