DENNIS LINDLEY

In my opinion, it helps enormously to know why something is true, rather than being told it is true, for why should you believe me? Never believe anything on the authority of a single person but seek confirmation — and reason is the best confirmation

Uncertainty is everywhere and you cannot escape from it.

There is much evidence that people are not rational, in the economist’s sense; nor do they take into account expectation, in the precise interpretation of that word. As a result, economic theory often does not correspond with what happens in the market. Some would argue that we need descriptive economics. I would argue that all should be taught about probability, utility, and MEU (maximization of expected utility) and act accordingly.

Uncertainty is a personal matter; it is not the uncertainty but your uncertainty.

Whatever way uncertainty is approached, probability is the only sound way to think about it.

In teaching there can be too much emphasis on certainty and a proper appreciation of uncertainty is to be encouraged.

The grand assertion is that you must see the world through probability and that probability is the only guide you need.

It is dangerous to attach probability zero to anything other than a logical impossibility.

It is not surprising that in talking about uncertainty we should lean heavily on facts, just as the court of law does when interrogating witnesses. Facts form a sort of bedrock on which we can build the shifting sands of uncertainty.

Consider the case of a person who holds a view with probability 1. Then coherence says that it is no use having a debate with them because nothing will change their mind.

Uncertainty is everywhere and you cannot escape from it.

There is much evidence that people are not rational, in the economist’s sense; nor do they take into account expectation, in the precise interpretation of that word. As a result, economic theory often does not correspond with what happens in the market. Some would argue that we need descriptive economics. I would argue that all should be taught about probability, utility, and MEU (maximization of expected utility) and act accordingly.

In my opinion, it helps enormously to know why something is true, rather than being told it is true, for why should you believe me? Never believe anything on the authority of a single person but seek confirmation — and reason is the best confirmation

In teaching there can be too much emphasis on certainty and a proper appreciation of uncertainty is to be encouraged.

Uncertainty is a personal matter; it is not the uncertainty but your uncertainty.

Whatever way uncertainty is approached, probability is the only sound way to think about it.

The grand assertion is that you must see the world through probability and that probability is the only guide you need.

I believe that almost all important, useful ideas are simple. Peter Whittle has recently put it nicely in an autobiographical essay. "If a piece of work is heavy and complicated then it is wrong." . . . Some writers feel that to express their ideas in simple terms is degrading. Some use complexity to disguise the paucity of their material. In fact, simplicity is a virtue and when, as here, it is both original and useful, it can represent a real advance in knowledge.

Utility is the emotion pleading to be let into the house of pure reason and thereby enriching it.

It is dangerous to attach probability zero to anything other than a logical impossibility.

Generally there is Stigler's law of eponymy that says that a scientific notion is never attributed to the right person; in particular, the law is not due to Stigler.

It is not surprising that in talking about uncertainty we should lean heavily on facts, just as the court of law does when interrogating witnesses. Facts form a sort of bedrock on which we can build the shifting sands of uncertainty.

Almost all thinking people agree that you should not have probability 1 (or 0) for any event, other than one demonstrable by logic, like 2 x 2 = 4.

Consider the case of a person who holds a view with probability 1. Then coherence says that it is no use having a debate with them because nothing will change their mind.