Gary Neville on dictatorship

The World Cup delivers again, this time pundit Gary Neville describing the refusal to release VAR footage as like a dictatorship. I suspect dictators have done worse.

Right and wrong ways to play the game?

In 'Essentially Contested Concepts,' W. B. Gallie imagines a championship contest where "each team specializes in a distinctive method, strategy and style of play" (p. 170) and there is no agreed scoring system, with each team competing to be acknowledged the best players of the game.

Of course, football isn't quite like this. There is an agreed method for determining who wins each match (who scores most goals) and the league championship (most points from all the games). But still, I'm sometimes reminded of Gallie when people debate how the game should be played.

Today, I see a bit of a discussion about importance of set pieces. This seems to be a current talking point on the BBC at least. Pundit Chris Sutton describes Arsenal as potentially "the ugliest Premier League-winning team in history". And Arne Slot says he doesn't like the emphasis on set pieces. It seems some don't like Arsenal winning the way they do, even if they are top of the table.

However, I was particularly struck by contrasting comments from Chelsea manager, Liam Rosenior, who is quoted as saying: 

"I think that is the beauty of football, you can do it in so many different ways. There's no right or wrong way to play football for me. I'm sure when we scored from a corner yesterday, our fans didn't care what the goal looked like. I'm sure Arsenal's fans didn't care what their goals looked like either. The game is about winning."

It looks like the debate will continue...

Why punctuation matters

Here is a good example to illustrate the importance of "quotation marks"... In case it vanishes from Twitter, image copied below.

Inflation

There's been a lot in the news lately about the rising cost of living. You can really see how bad things are when 'gifts under £10' cost £13.95...

Still, if anyone wants to contribute towards my living costs, this can be purchased through my Amazon affiliate link.

On voting in UCU strike ballots

 Strikes are currently taking place at many UK universities, with staff protesting over workloads, casualization, and (in pre-1992 institutions) further cuts to the USS pension scheme. These grievances are not new and have been discussed elsewhere before, for instance here and here. But there’s been less discussion of the ballot (voting) system that’s led to the strikes, which is pretty interesting in its own right.

 

A legal mandate for industrial action requires that more members vote in favour of action than against it, but also that at least 50% of members participate (vote) in the ballot. This is intended to ensure that there is wide support for action. Without some provision like this, a small number of workers might claim a mandate for action simply because of low turnout. But this requirement also produces some rather surprising consequences.

 

In ballots last year, a number of universities narrowly missed this turnout threshold, meaning no mandate for industrial action even though a significant majority of votes cast were in favour of it. For instance, at the University of Southampton, 491 out of 998 members voted – only eight short of the required turnout. This means there was no legal mandate, even though 348 of those votes (71.5% of valid votes) were in favour of strike action. (These figures all focus on votes for strike action, rather than action short of striking, and on the USS dispute in particular. Further, all figures are from November 2021, though a number of universities that narrowly missed the threshold subsequently held a second round of ballots.)

 

Matters were even closer in some other cases. The Newcastle University was just six votes short (619 out of 1,250). At the University of Manchester, the threshold was missed by a single vote (1,094 out of 2,094). This despite, respectively, 80.1% and 77.7% of those votes cast supporting strike action.

 

These figures reveal that some media coverage has been misleading. For instance, the BBC reported that staff at 58 universities voted in favour of strike action. While it is true that only 58 secured the necessary turnout, this overlooks the fact that a majority of votes cast at every university were for strike action. (The lowest level of support for strikes was 61.6% at the University of Reading.)

 

This isn’t simply a case of ‘near misses’ though. These figures also reveal some surprising consequences of the 50% turnout requirement. For instance, Reading did secure a legal mandate because 50.6% voted, albeit with only 61.6% of those (31.2% of eligible voters [228 out of 731]) favouring a strike. In contrast, Newcastle did not secure a legal mandate, because only 49.5% voted, even though 80.1% of these (39.7% of eligible voters [496 out of 1,250]) favoured a strike. This seems strange, to say the least.

 

The oddity of these rules is even more apparent if we consider some possible ‘what if’ scenarios. As noted above, Manchester was only one vote short of the turnout threshold. Had just one more person voted, then they would have the necessary mandate. But this would be the case regardless of how that person voted. Even had they voted against the strike, their single vote would not have stopped yes from winning, but would have met the turnout threshold.

 

In fact, support for strike action was so strong that it would still have won even had an extra 576 of those who did not vote instead voted against strike action. Again, it’s puzzling that a vote of 807-to-231 in favour of strikes fails to achieve a mandate, but 807-to-806 would do so. Why should more people voting against something give it a mandate it otherwise lacked?

 

This isn’t the end of the strangeness though. As we’ve just seen, one more person voting against a strike would have resulted in a legal mandate (807-to-232). But this mandate would have been lost had one of those 232 opposed to strike action abstained, rather than voting against it. So, not only can voting against a strike give it a mandate, but not voting at all might serve to block strike action!

 

Ordinarily, we expect abstention to be a ‘neutral’ option, between yes and no. In this case though, it was abstentions – rather than no votes – that blocked strike action where ballots failed. It might well be that some members realised that not voting was their best chance to avoid a strike and acted accordingly. (And, perhaps, some others voted no – making a strike more likely – because they didn’t want to block a strike in this manner.) However, if this was the case, then this strategic abstention might have backfired.

 

As it happens, the strike ballots that failed to secure a legal mandate did so because of low turnout, rather than low support from those that did vote. But things might have been otherwise. It could have been that turnout thresholds were met, but that the vote was a close one. In that case, there might have been a narrow victory for strike action that would have been overturned had strategic abstainers voted against it.

 

This means that some union members are faced with difficult choices, even if they know what they want. It’s clear what those in favour of strikes should do – they should vote yes to strike action. But opponents of strike action are faced with a dilemma. It isn’t obvious whether they best promote their cause by voting no or by abstaining. Either option might unwittingly create the strike mandate that they sought to avoid.

 

While the working conditions that have led so many academic staff to vote for strikes are the main issue, the success or failure of strike ballots is often the result of voting rules, rather than whether workers support strike action. The turnout requirement makes strike ballots harder to pass, but also has some rather surprising results.

 

Predatory behaviour

I recently discussed a case in favour of (so-called) predatory publishers, but there are concerns that such journals published a lot of rubbish. Here is a nice example, setting out to expose such problems.

 

It's published in the American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research, which I'd never previously heard of. They claim to use "thorough peer review and rigorous check[s]". And yet, somehow, they published an article on whether Covid-19 could be transmitted by consuming Zubat (a type of Pokemon).

I particularly appreciated the article's reference list, which includes a number of articles raising concerns around predatory publishing, along with some clearly joke references like:

10. Wayne B (2016) Phobia of Bats and Its Applications in Criminal Justice. Gotham Forensics Quarterly 26(8): 807-814.

22. Potter H, Weasley R, Granger H (2013) Novel rhinovirus responsible for newt eye infection. Magical Creatures 6: 31-36.

25. Winnfield J, Vega V (1994) What do they call a predatory journal in France? Pulp Nonfiction 521: 154.

29. Pooh W, Milne AA (2019) Similarities between politicians and fictional bears, part xi. Hong Kong Journal of Democracy 5: 50-55.

33. da Vinci L, Simoni MdLB, da Urbino MS, Bardi DdNdB (2014) Effects of exposure to sewage on martial arts skills in turtles. Journal of Cowabungan Zoology 479(2): 149-155.

34. Orwell G (1984) Why arresting doctors for discovering a new virus is a terrible idea. Annals of the Zhēnxiàngbù 112(2): 748-759.

 

This article will be useful for two purposes. First, I may discuss it with graduate students, when discussing publication (and warning them about publishing in such journals). Second, I may discuss it with undergraduates, when warning them to be selective about what they read.

How NOT to present stats...

I don't teach stats, but this Youtube video provides a good example of how NOT to present survey results...

Liveblogging Brexit #4: Not Dead

PM Johnson's Brexit legislation passed through the second reading stage, only for MPs to vote against his proposed timetable. Apparently it is now not dead but inert. I wonder whether it is also pining for the fjords, for I couldn't help being reminded of the dead parrot sketch.

Age-based Voting in the EU Referendum

In the aftermath of the EU ('Brexit') Referendum, there was a lot of talk about the disparity between the old (who it seems voted in larger numbers and mainly to leave) and the young (who mainly voted to remain, but many of whom did not vote - or for under 18s were not eligible to do so).


Here is Sean Lock, proposing to include those over 10 but exclude those over 65. You'll need institutional access to Box of Broadcasts.

If you don't have that, my TV guide says it was from Series 4, Episode 6 of 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown, which seems to be confirmed by 4OD. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to square with what I can find on Youtube, where episodes seem to be wrongly labelled. It featured Bill Bailey and Josh Widdicombe as guests.

A more serious, academic take on the issue is provided by this Van Parijs article (which I've shared before) but I think I might use Sean Lock in my lectures.

Iterated Games

An important part of game theory is that the payoffs of a one-off game may differ if it were repeated (especially if infinitely or indefinitely). A nice illustration of that can be found here.

In a one-off game, getting $1 beats getting 50c. But taking $1 ends the game, whereas if the boys keeps taking 50c then he gets another chance to play (indefinitely), allowing him to win much more over time.

Unusual Marriages 2: A Chandelier

When I posted this piece, about a woman who married a bridge, a while ago, I think I had a couple of other examples that I meant to post in a little series. Unfortunately, it looks like I never did. I just saw this piece, about a woman who proposed to a chandelier.

The piece clarifies that this marriage won't be recognised by Church or law, though as far as I can tell no marriage has actually taken place yet anyway. The woman in question apparently wants a commitment ceremony, although it seems she's in an open/polyamorous relationship that involves sleeping with other light fittings too.

Quotable Philosophy

Whilst reading through a number of articles of late, both for teaching prep and research purposes, I came across a couple of wonderful quotations, so I thought I'd share them:

"I could here have bored the reader with a long theoretical explanation of why such a critical or deconstructive reading is warranted, and mentioned names like Habermas, Foucault and Derrida. But I am not convinced that that would really add to the strength of my argument, apart from the implicit appeal to authority and the number of extra footnotes it would have allowed me."
Holm (2004), p. 30.

"I recognize the importance of these points, and have discussed them in a longer draft; unfortunately, space limitations prevent me from adequately addressing them here."
Temkin (2008), p. 194.

Eugenics

My latest publication is another on procreative beneficence.

I just happened to stumble upon this relevant SMBC strip on eugenics too. I was obviously distracted in summer 2013 and missed the working out of ethics. Can anyone fill me in?

XKCD comics for teaching

A couple of useful comics to link to.

One on voting methods, for my democratic theory class.

And one on identifying reliable sources, which should be useful for first years. On a related note, this looks a helpful source for many occasions.

Unusual Marriages 1: A Bridge

I'm teaching a module on the Ethics of Public Policy this semester which will cover, inter alia, marriage. Naturally the focus is likely to be on gay marriage, though we'll also discuss other things such as polygamy and arguments for the abolition of marriage. But one of the readings will be this piece by Ralph Wedgwood.

In this article, Wedgwood is concerned with the essential social meaning of marriage - a meaning which, he claims, does not restrict marriage to being between a man and a woman. However, he has to grapple with whether other, decidedly more unusual, cases of marriage might also be possible. In particular, he mentions examples of people marrying their dogs or their cars (p. 233) or one man marrying another man's left foot (p. 239). The problem, for a liberal view of marriage, is whether it can be permissive enough to allow gay marriage (and, perhaps, polygamy) while excluding such cases (assuming that we want to disallow them).

Wedgwood claims that, so far as he knows, no one actually wants to enter into these alternative forms of marriage (p. 239). It seems that this isn't entirely true, as the following example illustrates.

Artist Jodi Rose 'married' the Pont du Diable (Devil's Bridge) in France. Her account, in which she describes her and her bridge as "Officially *symbolically united" can be found here. The story was covered by the Metro and Huffington Post, both of whom make clear that the union is not legally recognised in France.

I think there are questions here as to whether there's any real (i.e. literal) sense in which this can be described as a woman marrying a bridge, as opposed to some fanciful make-believe. Further, before this could be a problem for Wedgwood's case, we'd need to consider whether or not she really wants this marriage to have the significance usually attached to other marriages. Perhaps, for instance, it was more of an excuse for a wedding party or a way to publicise her bridge singing party. Nonetheless, I think it's an interesting case to consider, especially when some people insist that marriage must - by definition - be between a man and a woman.

Festive Leicester

Consulting Garth Crooks' latest team of the week, I see he picked Robert Huth for helping Leicester to take six points out of six over the festive period.



That's odd, given that Leicester lost to Liverpool on the 26th and then drew with Man City on the 29th. Unless 'the festive period' refers to their wins over Everton on the 19th and Chelsea on the 14th, it looks like Mr Crooks dropped a bit of a clanger there...

Interpretation: Tangible Objects

I remember legal philosophy seminars on interpretation featuring some pretty interesting cases, like judges deciding that '5th' was reasonably interpreted to mean '6th' (or something along those lines anyway). Here's another case that may feature in interpretation cases. I'm not clear whether it's accurate to say that the Supreme Court ruled that fish are not tangible objects. It's probably more accurate to say that they interpreted 'other tangible objects' in the law more narrowly, so as not to include fish. It's an interesting case also for those who think that legislators are prone to over-criminalization.

How to Derive Ought from Is: SNP on Alcohol Pricing

The great Scottish philosopher David Hume famously remarked that one cannot derive an ought (that is, a normative conclusion about what one should do) from an is (that is, a mere statement of fact). It seems, however, that the SNP have cracked the problem. Alcohol is cheap, therefore minimum pricing is needed. Why didn't Hume, or one of the many philosophers who've considered his problem, think of that?

Measuring - and Reporting - Happiness

While I'm doubtful that the government can directly boost people's happiness, and wary of any attempts at its trying to do so, I do welcome recent moves towards policies aimed at improving well-being, rather than economic growth. As I argued in my last post, money is only means to an end, not an end in itself. I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and miserable.

It seems that the Office for National Statistics has recently published figures showing how happy we are. Sadly, even the BBC's coverage leaves a lot to be desired. First, I read this story, which says: "When broken down, Northern Ireland had the lowest life satisfaction rating - 21.9% - compared with 24.3% for England, 25.3% for Wales and 22.6% for Scotland."

It's not clear exactly what those figures mean, but on reading this other story it seems that they are completely misleading, since the latter article says: "People in Wales and England are less satisfied with their lives than people in Scotland and Northern Ireland ... England and Wales had similar proportion of adults giving a low rating for "life satisfaction" - 24.3% and 25.3% respectively. There were fewer people with low life satisfaction in Scotland (22.6%) and Northern Ireland (21.6%)"

In other words, the two articles give directly contradictory information using the same statistics: a fine example of innumerate journalism...

Don't Panic

Afraid posting's been slow because, between work and watching football/tennis, I've been rather busy of late, but I thought I'd just put in a quick plug for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Philosophy, in which I co-authored a chapter. Note that this is published by Palgrave-Macmillan, rather than one of the usual popular philosophy publishers (like Open Court), but it is of much the same ilk - a lighthearted introduction to some philosophical issues raised in/by/through Douglas Adams' HHGTTG.