prior probability

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?)

Via kottke, we discovered this comprehensive database of 1,157 NBA hardwood courts complied by Flickr user kodrinsky. His online collection includes pro-basketball courts for every NBA team dating back to the 1950s, and it documents changes in arena names, team logos, free-throw lane layouts, paint schemes, sponsors, and even wood patterns! Below, by way of example, are the courts for the Denver Nuggets from the 2003-04 and 2004-05 seasons.

“And who here is to do the regulating? Government is one of the biggest violators of our privacy, and also a driving force behind electronic medical records, another massive medical privacy violator (for better or worse) …. The governmental system of identity and privacy is based around the absurdity of using Social Security numbers. Government software is generations behind the cutting edge and OPM was hacked very badly, not to mention Snowden made away with all that [classified!] information. And government is to be the new privacy guardian?” In other words, who is the lesser evil? Facebook or the Feds?

–Tyler Cowen (emphasis in the original, via Marginal Revolution)

How much would you be willing pay Facebook or Google to use their Internet platforms without being subjected to ads? (Hint: “$0” and “they should pay me” are the wrong answers.) Geoffrey A. Fowler poses this thought-provoking question in this excellent essay (via The Washington Post). Here is an excerpt from his essay (with editorial comments by us in brackets):

Today, Zuckerman calls advertising “the Internet’s original sin.” Facebook doesn’t sell our data, but it uses it to sell marketers highly targeted access to us. These ads pay for billions of people to get information and have a voice online. But they also create an online world where surveillance is the norm and we’re not fully in control of data about us. And to compete [with whom, though?] Facebook has [has?] to keep collecting data like a hungry, hungry hippo. It started with what we post on Facebook, but grew to include what you do when you surf the Web and use other apps. It even lets marketers marry their own data with what Facebook has in its dossier. When I recently downloaded all my Facebook data (which anyone can do here), it included a frightening list of “Advertisers with your contact info.” Mine had a lot of giant corporations and … and Britney Spears.

In other words, people: there are no free lunches! If we want privacy, how much is it going cost us?