Ben

@AzorAzai: Interesting. My gym has them in the toilets, along with a little sign encouraging people to use them. (Perhaps we get some heavy eaters where I lift!)

If people don't put their rubbish away, you will need to clean up for the previous person who didn't clean up for himself, instead of for yourself. The analogy remains.

That is also true in the analogies I offer. Someone else could just clean your defecation out of the toilet and it would still only have to be cleaned once.

@TannerSwett: Yes, I think there is a sting. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments and for bringing your experiences to this thread.

Also interesting to note on this thread that the Leftist position is so averse to acknowledging the existence of contrary views that there is an unwillingness to even state the name of the movie "What is a Woman?" The level of orthodoxy and aversion-to-blasphemy is really quite pathetic (but in no way surprising).

"King Charles says he's the king but he's really not the king. It is outrageous that King Charles would assert himself to be king."

@TannerSwett: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I disagree completely that "she says she's a woman but she's actually a man" has no difference in meaning from the contrary "he" version. The former completely undermines itself and applies a female gender pronoun in the course of denying the femaleness of the subject! To be forced to express this idea in such language is a complete denial of freedom of conscience.

@JanusBahsJacquet: Your attitude simply confirms the institutional orthodoxy at issue, and the fact that you support institutional purging of dissenters on this issue. Rules in relation to dress codes, alcohol, etc., do not require a person to lie. Moreover, from the perspective of the people who decline to use the stipulated pronouns, it is their usage that is misgendering, not the absence of their usage --- the assertion of misgendering begs the question.

@JanusBahsJacquet: That is not true; preferred pronoun usage is being enforced by institutions, up to and including the penalisation/dismissal of personnel who decline to follow the pronoun-usage stipulation. Those who insist on such a system are the bullies here (actually, far worse).

I am reminded of the many totalitarian regimes where people were required to assent to ideas, titles, etc., that went against their own conscience --- people who had to fake reality, stating that which they believed not to be true, in front of authority figures who would punish them if they dissented from orthodoxy. "Disrespectful" doesn't quite capture the evil of such systems.

Again, I agree that there has not been a sentence, and that is my criticism of you taking that allusion too literally (and ignoring the sentences directly before and after it). The decision process at issue is still problematic in view of having reversed other elements, notwithstanding that it has not proceeded to any punishment. I'm surprised that the position "Don't jump to conclusions" is really that controversial.

The comment is obtuse because you are interpreting the Queen-of-Hearts remark far more literally than is obviously intended from the sentences directly before and after it. This is a well-known literary allusion that refers to the injustice of conducting a fact-finding/investigative process in an order that reverses the logical order of key parts, as has been done here. As is already pointed out in this thread, OP makes a number of statements to the effect that he is investigating and considering what potential adverse consequences to TA might or might not be warranted.

What an obtuse remark.

@Dawn: Yes, the point is indeed largely, "don't jump to conclusions". I have said that OP may talk to the TA about this, but the problem here is that OP has already jumped to a finding on the behaviour and resolved to "deal with this" --- it is Queen-of-Hearts behaviour: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards!". When I refer to due process here, I refer to the expectation that an investigator should talk to all relevant parties before making and communicating findings.

(RE above: I meant to include the words "while certainly a valid philosophy", surrounded by dashes as a parenthetic comment. It appears that the text editor has turned this into a strikethrough instead; unfortunately too late to edit. Please note that the strikethrough was inadvertant and not intended to suggest that your view on this point is not valid.)

As a thought experiment, consider an analogous circumstance with the sexes of the participants reversed. For example, suppose that a group of women identify some event in which there will be a substantial number of eligible bachelors, so they decide to go, absent any serious interest in the topic of the event. Do you think people in academia would froth at the mouth and call these women "disgusting" and demand they "repent" and seek ACTION, PUNISHMENT! To ask the question is to answer it.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes, because the ideas you raise while certainly a valid general philosophy seem to me to read more into the situation than what I read into it. I don't think that having an App that identifies places with lots of females is a denial of female agency, and I don't think that females can reasonably expect to go through life expecting to have to give consent in order for males to be allowed to be in social proximity to them.

I'm not seeing any difference there, so I think you might be trying to split the atom. Even in your previous explanation, the pre-sample set of alternative possible samples that you talk about is a sequence, and the frequentist interpretation (of probability) corresponds roughly to LLN. That is the only way I think it can be done (within the frequentist interpretation). It sounds like we do have some remaining disagreements. In any case, I'm satisfied with my answer.

@GrahamBornholt: Thanks for your continuing interest in this answer. I agree with your new example, but it simply reinforces my own point, so I think we may be speaking at cross-purposes. If I understand you correctly now, when you said that the frequentist approach does not require an infinite sequence, you just meant that the frequentist approach for solving a problem can be implemented with a finite sample (whereas I meant the frequentist approach to interpreting probability).

(Incidentally, your statement that 99% of the intervals would include the parameter (as an explanation of how to interpret probability) is question-begging. There is an uncountable set of possible intervals that do and don't contain the parameter, so any attempt to state a percentage that contain the parameter would require a measure over this set. If you were to check the proportion under Lebesgue measure over the set then it would not typically be 99%. The 99% outcome only comes from applying the probability measure, which then immediately begs the question.)

Your explanation is essentially just telling me how confidence intervals work, which I did not ask for, and which I already know. The question at issue (which you have not answered) is how you interpret the concept of frequentist probability without a sequence --- i.e., when you state $\mathbb{P}_\theta(\theta \in G(X))$, what does that statement mean from a frequentist interpretation. I say that the frequentists interpretation sees probability as the limiting relative-frequency of a sequence, you say I am wrong, but you have not given an alternative (purported) interpretation.

I don't buy it --- you still have not given any explanation for how you say you get to this "probability" if not by a sequence. What "possible CIs" are you referring to and how many of them are there? If not as a limiting proportion on an infinite sequence, in what manner do you go from this set of possible CIs to defining a "probability" that they encompass a parameter value?

But "the possible CIs" presumably refers to a sequence of repititions of the CIs, in which case we're back to an infinite sequence of realisations of random variables.

That does not provide an explanation of how the frequency interpretation can hold without an infinite sequence.

@GrahamBornholt: The reason I put it in quotations is that I generally find that there is ambiguity about what it refers to as a modelling/inference method. While the reference is appreciated, if frequentism does not require an infinite sequence of trials, would you mind giving a basic explanation in the comments as to what you believe it does require?

No. I don't think schools would ever hide the identities of other students in an allegation of collusion. In all cases I'm aware of, the students would all know who they are accused of colluding with and they would be given access to all relevant evidence of the alleged collusion.

@Job_September_2020: The students in the lawsuit were identical twins; it would have been impossible to hide their identity from each other in this case. The briefing does not specify the nature of the disciplinary hearing, but I would be extremely surprised if there were separate proceedings for each student. (Their lawsuit is also a joint filing.)

Re the legal case (Bingham v Medical University of South Carolina), the lawsuit related to leaking confidential information about the allegation of academic misconduct. The lawsuit did not allege that the proceedings were themselves unlawful. Rather, someone in the university leaked the adverse judgment (which had been overturned by the university on appeal) to the student body and the press (see plaintiff's pre-trial brief, p. 2) so they sued for defamation.

@Dmitry: I'll need the subtitles. ; )

@Dmitry: Are you sure you aren't conflating the 1812 Overture with the Russian national anthem at that time (written by Zhukovsky)? The lyrics you quote appear to be from the anthem. My understanding is the the lyrics of the overture include, "Grant victory o'er our treacherous and cruel enemies, And to our land bring peace. ... O mighty Lord hear our prayer and save our people"

@Dmitry: Nonsense --- if it has anything to say about the present day it would rightfully operate as a warning against imperialistic ambitions and a celebration of defence against invasion. You grudgingly concede that Napoleon was the aggressor, but make no change in your inference about the meaning of the song.

@Dmitry: Napoleon was the aggressor in that case (and the one exercising imperialistic ambitions) so surely a song that celebrates the Russian defence in that war is ipso facto a hymn to the successful defence against imperial ambition, not a hymn to imperialistic ambition. What was cancelled was a song celebrating the successful defence against a territorial invasion, simply because it involved a (dead) Russian. If we are going to exercise nuance, let's at least keep track of the history of these battles and not represent them as the opposite of what they were.

@Accumulation: So in your mind "getting a mathematics degree" is equivalent to "celebrating murder". Sigh.

Re the supposed nuance of the Cardiff Philharmonic case, I would be more inclined to agree that this is nuanced (and not primarily about the country of origin of Tchaikovsky) if it was accompanied by some broader cultural push to cancel all displays of warlike activity ---e.g., if we are cancelling cannon fire on the basis that it is a reminder of war, then why not also cancel movies, plys, etc., with shooting in them. I see no action by the cultural gatekeepers that suggests any broad-based cancellation of displays of warlike behaviour unless they feature Russians.

@Dmitry: Do you honestly think that treating a mathematics degree adversely, simply because it was earned in the same country as a government prosecuting a war, is a justified and balanced reaction? Presumably this would imply that no-one should go to Russia, and no-one in Russia should do anything. If you honestly do think this then let me know and I will happily remove the "psychotic" appelation. (And again, when used in a non-clinical sense, which is obviously is, this is not an accusation of a mental disease; it is a criticism of the appalling lack of empathy involved.)

@gerrit: Interesting example; I have added it to the post; if you can supply further details (who did what) I will update.

And please, spare me the confected outrage at the non-clinical use of the term "psychotic" --- such words are frequently used in an informal sense in ordinary discourse in the English language.

@Accumulation: All of the instances cited in the answer involve adverse treatment of people who have not set foot in Russia since the war started. Moreover, whatever one's thoughts on the Russian Govt, it is an extreme position to suggest that merely doing a mathematics degree at a Russian university is "immoral". That is indeed jingoism, and it goes well beyond condemnation of Govt actions within a country.

Thanks for chat --- I've got to go now, but feel free to respond and I'll have a look later.

Without any details from OP, I'm not willing to make the judgment that the behaviour of the other student was inappropriate (though her apology suggests that it was). In any case, I don't think any student should be able to study at university without hearing various religious positions (including their own religion, and including atheism) criticised, derided, mocked, etc. (Incidentally, according to OP the student criticising him was not German, though it occurred in a German university.)

Whether you find that compelling or not, it is a challenge to your asserted position that people should be able to work in academia without needing to mount an academic defense of their culture. At minimum, it suggests that you've drawn that principle too broadly. The value of extreme examples is that they test principles for coherence, etc.

The value of that type of argument is to test whether we actually believe in the freedoms we say people should have, or whether this is just a matter of whose ox is gored.

Do they? What if the (hypothetical) guy who is an Aryan supremacist/Nazi decides that he is not a willing participant in criticisms of Nazism? Does he thereby have the prerogative to shut-down criticisms of Nazism that are made in his presence?

No-one is suggesting that they would need to do this. Nevertheless, if someone is religious/atheistic, then at a university other people should be free to criticise their religion/atheism, etc. Sometimes this is unsolicited criticism (just as with the example of unsolicited criticism of a Nazi) and the university should provide its students/faculty with the academic freedom to mount these critiques. Yes, there is a "time and a place", but it must be allowed to happen.

@BryanKrause: No, I certainly don't get that impression. Nevertheless, I'm still interested in looking at the logical implications of the position you're putting forward in cases that differ from OP's situation. I think it implies a lot more thought-restriction than you think it does.

@BryanKrause: I'd also be interested to know if you actually truly believe that people should be able to work in academia without needing to mount an academic defense of their culture. For example, what if the culture adopted by a person is, say, overt 1930s style Aryan supremacism and Nazism. If such a person is in a university, is it reasonable for them to go about their work without being exposed to unsolicited criticisms of their culture (and therefore needing to defend it)?

@BryanKrause: I suspect we agree on more than is evident here, and again, I do not think that the value of open critique of culture, religion, etc., lies in entertainment value. Based on broad usage by activists asserting that criticisms of actions/practices threatens their "right to exist", I don't think you're correct in thinking that this only refers to their right to be present as students/faculty in a university.

This getting away from where we started, so I'm going to go back to basics. What is objectionable to me in what Bryan says is that it takes positions of the form "Cultural/religious practice X is bad" and transforms this to "People who practice X should cease to exist". The first position is an argument form that is necessary to have any normative discussion of how people ought to behave; the latter transmutes this into a call to destroy people. In fairness to Bryan, he didn't invent this rhetorical technique, but he is using it, and it is hysterical.

Re questioned to threatened, surely the questioning of one's right to exist is threatening.