Micro review of *The Revolutionary Temper*

Given my previous work on Adam Smith and his extended visit to the City of Light in 1766 (see especially here and here), I decided to give Robert Darnton’s new book The Revolutionary Temper: Paris, 1748-1789 a go. Darnton, a history professor at Harvard University, purports to narrate the history of the “collective consciousness” or “frame of mind” of the people of Paris during the four decades preceding the great Revolution of 1789. Alas, although this beautiful book is well-researched and written, Professor Darnton’s project is doomed from the start for three reasons:

  1. The definitional or “level of generality” problem: how does one even begin to define such vague and fuzzy constructs like “collective consciousness” or “frame of mind”?
  2. The measurement problem: even if we could all agree on an acceptable definition of these social constructs, there is no reliable way of measuring them!
  3. Both of these problems are further compounded by the fact that Paris was the second-largest city in Europe at the time (after London), with an estimated population of at least 600,000 souls at the start of the 1789 Revolution. (See here, for example.) How could such a large and diverse group of people — from artisans to aristocrats, merchants to clergymen, and everyone in between — share a “collective consciousness” in the first place?

Nevertheless, although the plural of anecdote is not data (or is it?), Darnton’s collection of amusing 18th-century anecdotes is still worth reading, for he covers all the major events in French history that in one way or another may have contributed to the eventual downfall of the old regime. (Indeed, a better title for this book would be Vignettes of the Ancien Régime.) By way of illustration, I will limit this micro review to my favorite of these old regime vignettes: the commotion caused by the publication of Richesse de l’Etat in 1763, a political pamphlet that “took Paris by storm and stirred up an enormous debate about royal finances” (p. 72). In Darton’s telling, the anonymous author of this pamphlet proposed nothing less than an end to France’s “unjust system of taxation”, to be replaced with a new and simple single tax system, “which would be apportioned among the top two million property owners according to a graduated scale” (ibid.).

For my part, I wonder whether Adam Smith was aware of Richesse de l’Etat and other similar political pamphlets during his travels in France (early February 1764 to late October 1766), and if so, to what extent did these works and the larger political debate over taxation in France influence his subsequent magnum opus on The Wealth of Nations, especially Book V? These are questions that I shall explore in a future post, but in the meantime, speaking of the great Scottish philosopher-economist, I will conclude my series of “micro reviews” in the next day or two with Paul Sagar’s excellent 2022 tome Reconsidering Adam Smith.

File:Map of Paris in 1789 by William R Shepherd (died 1834).jpg - Wikimedia  Commons
Happy Birthday, Sydjia. You are the love of my life!
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Homage to Richard Posner

Yesterday, my colleague and friend Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr), a law professor at U.C. Berkeley, posted a series of melancholic tweets in honor of my intellectual mentor Richard Posner. As it happens, yours truly had the honor of meeting Judge Posner, who I consider to be the greatest legal scholar of our time, on several occasions. (The most recent time was on 6 November 2015 at the annual Loyola Chicago Constitutional Law Colloquium; see picture below.) In any case, one of Professor Kerr’s tweets (see here) has inspired me to share below the links to my multi-part tribute to some of Posner’s works and ideas, which I wrote up and posted on this blog earlier this year.

  1. What is Richard Posner’s legacy? (4 February)
  2. Taking Posner Seriously (9 February)
  3. Taking Posner Seriously: Law & Literature (21 February)
  4. Taking Posner Seriously: Lochner v. New York (2 March)
  5. Taking Posner Seriously: Sex and Reason (8 March)
  6. Taking Posner Seriously: Politics as Law (10 March)
F. E. Guerra-Pujol and Richard A. Posner (circa 2015)

PS: I will have much more to say about Judge Posner and his legacy, including his magnum opus Economic Analysis of Law, in 2024. In the meantime, I will post my review of Richard Darnton’s latest book, The Revolutionary Temper: Paris, 1748-1789, in my next post.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Of lotteries and prefaces: two probability puzzles

I concluded my previous post with a reference to two important probability puzzles: one is called the lottery paradox; the other, the paradox of the preface. What are these logical problems? Why are they important? And can they be solved?

Let’s roll up our metaphorical sleeves and start with the lottery paradox. Imagine a fair and honest lottery or raffle consisting of 100 raffle tickets. One of the tickets is guaranteed to win, since the lottery is a fair and honest one, but you don’t know which one. All you “know” ahead of time is that each ticket has a mere 1% chance of being the winning ticket. This scenario thus poses a logical paradox because it is rational for you to “believe” in the truth of two contradictory propositions at the same time: (1) you know or believe that one of the tickets will be a winning ticket even though (2) you also believe that none of the individual tickets is likely to win, since each individual ticket only has a 1% chance of winning.

Next up, let’s consider the preface paradox or what I like to call the “reverse lottery” problem. Have you ever noticed how most scholarly works often contain a statement up front along the following lines: “… any errors that remain are mine alone …”? Alas, once again we have a contradiction! On the one hand, an honest author of a scholarly work must generally believe each and every assertion in his academic book to be true and correct, especially if he did the research and checked his work for accuracy, and in any case, no self-respecting author would knowingly make a false assertion. But at the same time, he must also believe that at least one of the assertions in his book might very well be mistaken. After all, nobody’s perfect; we all make mistakes!

So, why are these probability puzzles worth worrying about? Simply put, because both the lottery and preface paradoxes potentially undermine the logical foundations of the subjective approach to probability (an approach that good Bayesians like yours truly are supposed to espouse), much like a lethal pincer movement in which two divisions of a powerful army simultaneously attack both flanks of an enemy formation. Or in the eloquent words of one scholar (philosopher Richard Foley; see generally here): “The lottery seems to show that no rational degree of [belief] less than 1.0 can be sufficient for rational belief, while the preface seems to show that a rational degree of [belief] greater than 0.5 is not even necessary for rational belief.”

Is it possible to solve either paradox? As it happens, many workarounds have been made, but each of these solutions has significant drawbacks. (See, e.g., Foley’s 1992 paper above or Huber’s excellent survey of the degrees of belief literature, which I reviewed in my previous post.) For my part, instead of going into the technical details of these purported solutions, for now it suffices to say that these paradoxes are “pseudo problems” — i.e. mere philosophical wordplay — and that both can easily be solved with a little creativity and common sense. Not every assertion in an academic book is well-researched, for example, and even when they are, more often than not new evidence may emerge that falsifies a previously well-settled assertion. Likewise, the lottery paradox goes away if you buy all 100 tickets.

Rest assured, I will present a more general and formal solution to the lottery and preface paradoxes in a future post; in the meantime, I will return to the task at hand and conclude my series of “micro reviews” with the recent works of Robert Darnton (The Revolutionary Temper) and Paul Sagar (Reconsidering Adam Smith).

PARADOX on Steam
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Micro review of Franz Huber’s survey of subjective probability

By way of background, I should disclose off the bat that I am a huge fan of the subjective approach to probability pioneered by Bruno de Finetti and Frank Ramsey, especially the idea that a person’s “priors” about the world are almost always derived from his own personal intuition and the related insight that one’s beliefs about the world don’t have to be “all or nothing” but can come in degrees or shades of grey. So this Yuletide I finally got around to reading Franz Huber’s 2009 survey of subjective probability, which is titled “Belief and Degrees of Belief“, and although this work is super-technical — filled with formal notation and a smattering of equations — I am glad I did for three reasons:

First off, Section 3 of Huber’s survey not only contains an excellent introduction to the standard betting model of subjective probability, i.e. the idea that a person’s probability estimate for a given proposition can be measured by “the highest price she is willing to pay for a bet that returns 1 Euro if [the proposition is true] and 0 otherwise” (Huber 2009, p. 6); Huber also explores two alternative theories of subjective probability, including one called the “transferable belief model” (pp. 13-15) and another based on “fuzzy set theory” (pp. 16-18).

Secondly, Huber identifies and discusses a deep and difficult foundational question in the probability literature, one that I had not given much thought to before. In a word, what is the relation between “belief” and “degrees of belief”? That is, what is the relation between one’s quantitative degree of belief about the truth value of a given proposition, which is supposed to be a real number from the interval [0, 1], and one’s qualitative belief about that proposition, which can only consist of one of three states: belief, disbelief, and suspension of judgement? At best, the betting model described above can only measure one’s degree of belief; it cannot, however, tell us what a degree of belief actually is; nor can it tell us when a degree of belief is strong or weak enough to be converted into belief or disbelief.

Third and last (and perhaps most importantly for me, given my own pro-subjective-probability priors!), Huber also explores two important logical problems in the literature: the so-called “lottery” and “preface” paradoxes. As it happens, both of these problems pose an existential challenge to the subjective approach to probability, so both deserve blog posts of their own. Stay tuned: I will address the the lottery paradox and preface paradox in a separate blog post, before proceeding to the works of Robert Darnton on the French Revolution and Paul Sagar on Adam Smith.

1 2
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Music Monday: Christmas edition

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Merry Christmas!

FYI: I will post my next “micro review” in the next day or two; in the meantime, “from my fridge to yours”: below is my family’s holiday card for 2023 (not pictured, for the photo was taken in October: Aritzia and Kleber, who are in college, and Adela, who lives in California).

May be an image of 3 people and text
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Micro review of *The Hemingway Thief*

The backstory of this debut novel by Shaun Harris is based on one of the most legendary literary heists of all time. According to lore (see here, here, or here, for example), in December of 1922 — 101 years ago! — a valise containing almost all of Ernest Hemingway’s early manuscripts was stolen from a platform at the Gare de Lyon train station (pictured below) in Paris. At the time, the young Hemingway was a foreign correspondent for the Toronto Star and an aspiring writer, but he had yet to publish any of his fiction. (As a further aside, this anecdote was first told by none other than Hemingway himself in Chapter 9 of his posthumous collection of stories about his life in Paris, A Moveable Feast, first published in 1964 — three years after his death by suicide.)

But did this literary theft really occur, and if so, what happened to the suitcase and its contents? Or is there more to this story that meets the eye? Did Hemingway, for example, conspire with a confederate to stage the theft in order to attract sympathy from potential publishers or to guilt-trip his first wife Hadley Richardson? (In Hemingway’s telling, the lost suitcase was with Hadley when it was stolen from the train station.) In short, who stole the valise, and why? Wherever the truth lies, what I loved the most about this unorthodox crime novel is how the author, Mr Harris, seamlessly weaves this mysterious piece of Hemingway lore into his page-turner of a story.

Alas, this is a work of pure fiction, so I can’t say more without spoiling the author’s many secrets and surprising plot twists. ¡Feliz Nochebuena!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Coming soon: micro reviews of my Christmas readings

Christmas Day is around the corner, and I have just about finished reading the sundry books on my 2023 winter break reading list while I was in the BVI (see my 14 December post, which I am reblogging below), so I will start writing up and posting “micro reviews” (hat tip: Bryan Caplan) of my Yuletide readings in the next day or two. In the meantime: ¡Feliz Nochebuena (Christmas Eve)!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Judicial performance art

I am reblogging my initial reaction to “the Colorado case” (you know what I am talking about!) because I just realized that the court’s decision is a purely symbolic one — more a case of “judicial performance art” than a substantive legal decision. How so? Because as long as Trump appeals the court’s decision to the Supreme Court of the United States before January 4th, his name will remain on Colorado’s March 5th primary ballot! From page 9 of the Colorado court’s legal opinion creative writing exercise:

… we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the … deadline to certify the content of the [Colorado] presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Puerto Rican parranda

One of the things I miss the most about the Island of Puerto Rico, where I lived from 1993 to 2009, is the parranda, a musical tradition that is celebrated during the Christmas holiday season, which in Puerto Rico extends all the way to Three Kings Day in January. (PS: This is another reason why I would love Puerto Rico to become the 51st State — people in the mainland U.S. don’t know what they are missing!)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment