Risk writ large

Risk-weighted expected utility (REU) theory is motivated by small-world problems like the Allais paradox, but it is a grand-world theory by nature. And, at the grand-world level, its ability to handle the Allais paradox is dubious. The REU model described in Risk and Rationality turns out to be risk-seeking rather than risk-averse on one natural way of formulating the Allais gambles in the grand-world context. This result illustrates a general problem with the case for REU theory, we argue. There is a tension between the small-world thinking marshaled against standard expected utility theory, and the grand-world thinking inherent to the risk-weighted alternative

No escape from Allais: reply to Buchak

In Risk and Rationality, Buchak (Risk and rationality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013) advertises REU theory as able to recover the modal preferences in the Allais paradox. In our Thoma and Weisberg (Philos Stud 174(9):2369–2384, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0916-3) however, we pointed out that REU theory only applies in the “grand world” setting, where it actually struggles with the modal Allais preferences. Buchak (Philos Stud 174(9):2397–2414, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0907-4) offers two replies. Here we enumerate a variety of technical and philosophical problems with each

Altitude-Related Change in Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressures in Helicopter EMS

INTRODUCTION: Over-inflation of endotracheal tube (ETT) cuffs has the potential to lead to scarring and stenosis of the trachea.1, 2,3, 4 The air inside an ETT cuff is subject to expansion as atmospheric pressure decreases, as happens with an increase in altitude. Emergency medical services helicopters are not pressurized, thereby providing a good environment for studying the effects of altitude changes ETT cuff pressures. This study aims to explore the relationship between altitude and ETT cuff pressures in a helicopter air-medical transport program. METHODS: ETT cuffs were initially inflated in a nonstandardized manner and then adjusted to a pressure of 25 cmH2O. The pressure was again measured when the helicopter reached maximum altitude. A final pressure was recorded when the helicopter landed at the receiving facility. RESULTS: We enrolled 60 subjects in the study. The mean for initial tube cuff pressures was 70 cmH2O. Maximum altitude for the program ranged from 1,000-3,000 feet above sea level, with a change in altitude from 800-2,480 feet. Mean cuff pressure at altitude was 36.52 +/- 8.56 cmH2O. Despite the significant change in cuff pressure at maximum altitude, there was no relationship found between the maximum altitude and the cuff pressures measured. CONCLUSION: Our study failed to demonstrate the expected linear relationship between ETT cuff pressures and the maximum altitude achieved during typical air-medical transportation in our system. At altitudes less than 3,000 feet above sea level, the effect of altitude change on ETT pressure is minimal and does not require a change in practice to saline-filled cuffs

2005-2006 Young Musicians Competition - Winds, Brass, and Percussion

Sponsored by Jim and Bette Cumpton Competition Coordinator Marc Reese, Lynn University Conservatory of Music Jury Christina Burr, Artist Faculty David Cole, Artist Faculty Michael Ellerthttps://spiral.lynn.edu/conservatory_other-competitions/1003/thumbnail.jp

Pooling, Products, and Priors

We often learn the opinions of others without hearing the evidence on which they're based. The orthodox Bayesian response is to treat the reported opinion as evidence itself and update on it by conditionalizing. But sometimes this isn't feasible. In these situations, a simpler way of combining one's existing opinion with opinions reported by others would be useful, especially if it yields the same results as conditionalization. We will show that one method---upco, also known as multiplicative pooling---is specially suited to this role when the opinions you wish to pool concern hypotheses about chances. The result has interesting consequences: it addresses the problem of disagreement between experts; and it sheds light on the social argument for the uniqueness thesis

Jeffrey Pooling

How should your opinion change in light of an epistemic peer's? We show that the pooling rule known as "upco" is the unique answer satisfying some natural desiderata. If your revised opinion will impact your other views by Jeffrey conditionalization, then upco is the only standard pooling rule that ensures the order in which peers are consulted makes no difference. Popular alternatives like linear pooling, geometric pooling, and harmonic pooling cannot boast the same. In fact, no alternative can that possesses four minimal properties these proposals all share

"Antiscepticism and Easy Justification" - Ch 5 of Seemings and Epistemic Justification

In this chapter I investigate epistemological consequences of the fact that seeming-based justification is elusive, in the sense that the subject can lose this justification simply by reflecting on her seemings. I argue that since seeming-based justification is elusive, the antisceptical bite of phenomenal conservatism is importantly limited. I also contend that since seeming-based justification has this feature, phenomenal conservatism isn’t actually afflicted by easy justification problems