The simplest questions often have the most complex answers. The Philosopher's Zone is your guide through the strange thickets of logic, metaphysics and ethics.
…
continue reading
Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right
0-10 subscribers
Checked 8d ago
Added four years ago
Content provided by Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen, Bruce Nielson, and Peter Johansen. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen, Bruce Nielson, and Peter Johansen or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
Similar to The Theory of Anything
Travel, at its best, changes the way we see the world. Join us each week as we dig into stories from people who took a trip—and came home transformed. Travel Tales by Afar is your ticket to the world, no passport required.
…
continue reading
David Edmonds (Uehiro Centre, Oxford University) and Nigel Warburton (freelance philosopher/writer) interview top philosophers on a wide range of topics. Two books based on the series have been published by Oxford University Press. We are currently self-funding - donations very welcome via our website http://www.philosophybites.com
…
continue reading
Stephen Fry's 7 Deady Sins - I will take each one of the Seven Sins in turn, lay them out on the surgical table and poke, prod, pry and provoke in an attempt to try to anatomise and understand them; I hope and believe it will be, if nothing else, delicious fun and something of a change from the usual run of podcastery. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
…
continue reading
Peter Adamson, Professor of Philosophy at the LMU in Munich and at King's College London, takes listeners through the history of philosophy, "without any gaps". www.historyofphilosophy.net
…
continue reading
Imperfect Paradise is an award-winning weekly narrative podcast showcasing California stories with universal significance, hosted by Antonia Cereijido. Each deeply reported story is driven by characters who illuminate aspects of American identity and underscore California's reputation as a home for dreamers and schemers, its heartbreaking inequality, its varied and diverse communities, its unique combination of dense cities and wild places. New episodes premiere Wednesdays, with broadcasts o ...
…
continue reading
Bullseye is a celebration of the best of arts and culture in public radio form. Host Jesse Thorn sifts the wheat from the chaff to bring you in-depth interviews with the most revered and revolutionary minds in our culture. Bullseye has been featured in Time, The New York Times, GQ and McSweeney's, which called it "the kind of show people listen to in a more perfect world."
…
continue reading
Join two of the stars from Real Housewives of Potomac, Gizelle Bryant and Robyn Dixon, as they team up for their new podcast Reasonably Shady. The show features conversations about being fearless women as they recount stories from their exciting lives. Topics include dating, relationships, marriage, entrepreneurs, motherhood, style, glam, current events and more! Join Gizelle and Robyn for Reasonably Shady!
…
continue reading
Rabbi Shalom Rosner on The Parsha
…
continue reading
Leading thinkers discuss the ideas shaping our lives – looking back at the news and making links between past and present. Broadcast as Free Thinking, Fridays at 9pm on BBC Radio 4. Presented by Matthew Sweet, Shahidha Bari and Anne McElvoy.
…
continue reading
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Go offline with the Player FM app!
))
Daily Deals
Podcasts Worth a Listen
SPONSORED
S
Species Unite
1 Reuven Bank and Andrew Kim: When the Ocean Lost Its Stars 30:54
30:54 
Play Later 
Play Later 
Lists 
Like 
Liked30:54
Play Later
Play Later
Lists
Like
LikedEpisode 102: Is IQ a Bit Scientifically Valid?
Manage episode 464937118 series 2853322
Content provided by Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen, Bruce Nielson, and Peter Johansen. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen, Bruce Nielson, and Peter Johansen or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
This time we discuss Nassim Nicholas Taleb's article "IQ is Largely a Pseudoscientific Swindle" -- a title whose compliment is that he's claiming IQ is a bit scientifically valid. But which bits does he claim are valid?
We use this article as a springboard to consider: Do the numbers produced by an IQ test say something meaningful or useful about human minds? Would these tests be better off in the dustbin of history? Are they ever useful? And is there overlap between Taleb's take on IQ and the negative view of these tests held by many critical rationalists? What does Taleb agree (or disagree) with CritRats over when it comes to IQ?
110 episodes
ShareManage episode 464937118 series 2853322
Content provided by Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen, Bruce Nielson, and Peter Johansen. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen, Bruce Nielson, and Peter Johansen or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
This time we discuss Nassim Nicholas Taleb's article "IQ is Largely a Pseudoscientific Swindle" -- a title whose compliment is that he's claiming IQ is a bit scientifically valid. But which bits does he claim are valid?
We use this article as a springboard to consider: Do the numbers produced by an IQ test say something meaningful or useful about human minds? Would these tests be better off in the dustbin of history? Are they ever useful? And is there overlap between Taleb's take on IQ and the negative view of these tests held by many critical rationalists? What does Taleb agree (or disagree) with CritRats over when it comes to IQ?
110 episodes
All episodes
×
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 109: Genes, Emergence, and Platonism (round table with Sadia and Ivan) 3:24:46
3:24:46 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked3:24:46
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedIn this round table discussion with Ivan Phillips and Sadia Naeem, we begin by discussing differing viewpoints on “third way evolution,” or a gene-centric viewpoint vs a more holistic view of natural selection. The discussion evolves into a deep dive into emergence and reductionism and many interwoven ideas.Ivan Phillips is author of Textbook Rationality about rationality education, and a new book titled Counterargument from Design that counters arguments for design in evolution. Sadia Naeem, like Ivan, has a PhD has in physics and is interested in the most far-reaching ideas across many domains regarding the fabric of our reality. Both have been on the podcast numerous times before. Support us on Patreon Ivan's "Probability and Purpose: A Refutation of Divine Intent" Ivan's "Textbook Rationality"…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 108: AI and Obedience (with Dan Gish) 1:52:04
1:52:04 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:52:04
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedThis week we are joined by fellow traveler Dan Gish to discuss LLMs and AGI. Does it really, truly make sense to think that OpenAI or DeepMind are not at least an important stepping stone towards the creation of human-level creativity? What does it mean when CritRats assert that these AI algorithms are the opposite of human intelligence because they are obedient whereas we are disobedient? Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
Here we discuss fidesim and critical rationalism. Fideism has many definitions, but at least how we are thinking of it, it is the idea that something like faith has validity in the process of moving closer to truth through reason. Our starting point is a paper written by prominent Popperian Joseph Agassi about how William Bartley, another critical rationalist philosopher closely associated with Popper, had a falling out with Popper after he accused Popper of being a fideist, which Popper apparently did not consider a compliment. But was Bartley perhaps correct? Note: we decided to cover this paper before we even realized it was about fideism which -- by pure dumb luck -- happened to be part of the topic of our last episode (#106: Karl Popper and God) where Bruce declared himself a Fideist. As such, episode #106 is not required listening, but you might find Popper's views on God and his views on epistemological fideism an interestingly interplay. Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
This week we discuss a short interview with Karl Popper from 1969 where he discusses God and religion. Specifically, he makes a case for agnosticism, asserts that all men are religious, and discusses the problem of evil. We use this as a starting point to consider if we live in an inherently meaningful universe or one ruled by something like entropy. We discuss arguments for the former related to fine tuning, causation, and beauty. Bonus: Bruce proclaims himself one of those much hated Fideists! (A group disliked by both rationalists and religionists alike.) Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 105: Michael Levin's Unseen World of Cell Cognition 1:51:55
1:51:55 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:51:55
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedThis week Bruce speaks about the work or Michael Levin, who is a biologist know for his work on cell cognition and collective intelligence or the idea that electrical signals between cells influence the formation of biological systems. His work has potentially massive implications in cancer research and other fields. Though rarely identified with 3rd way evolution, his work has more than a passing similarity to it. Like 3rd way evolutionists, he seeks to expand evolutionary theory beyond the alleged reductionism of a gene-centric or neo-Darwinian approach. Presumably, these bioelectric effects could be considered a kind of epigenetic or evolutionary process existing outside the genome. However, unlike the 3rd Way evolutionists, he's ready to back up his views with clever and shocking experiments that confront popular interpretations of gene-centric evolution head on. Can Levin's work possibly help us determine who is more right in the argument between 3rd Way evolutionists like Denis Noble or James Shapiro vs mainstream evolutionary biologists like Zach Hancock? Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 104: 3rd Way Evolution vs the Critics 1:57:37
1:57:37 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:57:37
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedHow well do the collection of assertions called “3rd way evolution” stand up to criticism? Here, in our second of at least 3 episodes on this topic, Bruce considers the criticisms of Denis Noble and James Shapiro by YouTuber and evolutionary biologist Zach Hancock in his epic video on the subject. Perhaps the role of epigenetics is overstated, Lamarckism is not back, and neo-Darwinism is not dead after all. Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 103: Neo-Darwinism vs Post-Darwinism 1:53:36
1:53:36 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:53:36
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedThis week we discuss neo-Darwinism vs post-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism meaning a gene centric view of evolution, which is also called the great synthesis since it unifies natural selection with genetics and paleontology and perhaps even human psychology. Post-Darwinism is a view that emphasizes factors outside random mutation, like epigenetics or the assertion that organisms and cells can alter their own genome in a beneficial way. Here Bruce specifically concentrates on the work of biologist James Shapiro’s critical look at Richard Dawkins’ neo-Darwinism.We consider, does it really make sense to see our bodies and minds as tools governed by our masters DNA? Does post-Darwinism, also called “third way evolution,” offer a meaningful alternative to both neo-Darwinism and the theism of intelligent design? Does this way of looking at biology say something about the very nature of reality and the laws of physics? This is part 1 of a loose series. Part 2 will cover criticisms of Noble and Shapiro. Part 3 will cover the work of Michael Levin. However, you don't really need to listen to them in order and we provide context each time. James Shapiro's Evolution: A View from the 21 Century Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 102: Is IQ a Bit Scientifically Valid? 1:25:51
1:25:51 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:25:51
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedThis time we discuss Nassim Nicholas Taleb's article "IQ is Largely a Pseudoscientific Swindle" -- a title whose compliment is that he's claiming IQ is a bit scientifically valid. But which bits does he claim are valid? We use this article as a springboard to consider: Do the numbers produced by an IQ test say something meaningful or useful about human minds? Would these tests be better off in the dustbin of history? Are they ever useful? And is there overlap between Taleb's take on IQ and the negative view of these tests held by many critical rationalists? What does Taleb agree (or disagree) with CritRats over when it comes to IQ? Taleb's original article found here . Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 101: Wolfram, Rucker, and the Computational Nature of Reality 2:16:27
2:16:27 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked2:16:27
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedBruce takes a deep dive into Stephen Wolfram’s ideas regarding computational universality, which may go further than the Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis in that Wolfram’s theories imply that all of nature could be simulated even by relatively simple systems, so even nature itself may be computational rather than something that can just be simulated on a turning machine or quantum computer. Stephen Wolfram is a renowned physicist, computer scientists, and entrepreneur. Bruce also talks about the related ideas on philosophy of computation promoted by Rudy Rucker, who is a mathematician, computer scientist, and science fiction author associated with cyberpunk genre. Both thinkers believe, rightly or wrongly, that the complexity of life and the universe can be explained by relatively simple computational rules. Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 100: Interview with David Deutsch 2:27:25
2:27:25 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked2:27:25
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedOur Christmas gift to you this year is episode 100: an interview with The Man (TM) himself! Bruce stumbles over himself fan-boying as he asks all his burning (but geeky) questions about cosmology, the omega point, and probability. How do Deutsch and Tipler differ on optimistic end-time cosmology? Is the Omega point refuted by observation (Deutsch) or not (Tipler)? Does heat death contradict the principle of optimism? Is it a bummer? Does stochasticity really not exist? And is it rational to wear a mask during COVID? How do you apply epistemology to a question like that when you lack enough data to severely test your theories but still need to make a decision? Peter asks: Are free will and downward causation related? Do our genes attempt to coerce us? Why are explanatory and computational universality so confusing? And what if studies show that authoritative parenting is best for children? Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 99: Critical Rationalism and Solipsism 1:31:31
1:31:31 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:31:31
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedAKA "David Deutsch DESTORYS the Simulation Hypothesis" Bruce take a deep dive into solipsism in the form of the brain in a vat thought experiment, Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis, and related ideas. Does the Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis suggest we could live in a simulation? What does critical rationalism say about these theories? Support us on Patreon…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 98: Objectively Beautiful Flowers? 1:58:05
1:58:05 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:58:05
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedThis week we discuss the chapter “Why are Flowers Beautiful?” from the book Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch. Through our discussion we consider: Does relativism make any sense? Is preferring Mozart to a child banging on a piano really just an arbitrary preference? If progress in art is real, will human minds ever stop increasing the level of beauty in the world? Are humans more objectively beautiful than other species? (And are women more beautiful than men?) Is music “cheesecake for the ears,” as Steven Pinker puts it? And is cheesecake itself even “cheesecake for the mouth”? Is progress in science also intertwined with aesthetic progress?…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 97: Karl Popper On Conservatism in Music (w/Chris Johansen) 1:31:41
1:31:41 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:31:41
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedWe take a deep dive into Karl Popper’s philosophical ideas about music that he outlines in four chapters in this intellectual autobiography Unended Quest: “Music,” Speculations about the Rise of Polyphonic Music,” “Two Kinds of Music,” and “Progressivism in Art, Especially in Music.” We are joined by Peter’s brother, Chris Johansen, who is a straight-ahead jazz tenor saxophonist living in NYC. We discuss how Popper’s ideas on classical music intersect with Chris’s ideas on jazz, as well as the role of conservatism in music. We examine how Popper’s thinking on music influenced his concept of the 3 worlds and his ideas on such concepts as dogmatism, essentialism, and historicism. Plus, you get Bruce's rant about the importance of constraints in music, science, criticism, and Popper's epistemology. Bruce argues that absent at least the attempt to outline epistemological conventions (i.e. constraints) you can't error correct Popper's epistemology and you lose what makes it special. You can listen to more of Chris’s music here .…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 96: Kenneth Stanley on the Pursuit of What’s Interesting 1:28:33
1:28:33 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:28:33
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedHere we interview AI researcher Kenneth Stanley, who makes the case that in complex systems, pursing specific objectives can actually be counterproductive. Instead, whether in machine learning, business, science, education, or art, we should pursue what is interesting. It is in this search for novelty—fueled by curiosity—where innovation and open-ended knowledge creation occurs. Get Ken's book! Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective Also: Can Bruce find a counter example to Ken's thesis? How does one 'detect novelty' using an algorithm? Is creativity really a search algorithm?…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 95: On Morality, Moralizing, and Elephant Jockeys (Round Table) 2:48:50
2:48:50 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked2:48:50
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedThis time we invited some of the coolest and smartest people we know to have a freewheeling discussion on morality loosely centered on Jonathan Haidt's “rider and the elephant” metaphor. We take a deep dive into this idea that moral reasoning is a slave to our passions. Guests: • Lulie Tanett (https://open.spotify.com/show/6OPFnEt6uTOTGeSpnZ1YDp?si=4exIQOUfQzOg4TIU2hZ5hA) • Vaden Masrani (https://open.spotify.com/show/1gKKSP5HKT4Nk3i0y4UseB?si=Iu1WkwJMR1GHlm3OLrUwNA) • Ivan Phillips (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08VGCFVJB?ref=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_33ZJEY7V0RP00CG7566Z&ref_=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_33ZJEY7V0RP00CG7566Z&social_share=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_33ZJEY7V0RP00CG7566Z&language=en_US) • Ray Scott Percival (https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Closed-Mind-Understanding-Rational-ebook/dp/B007ED2YOG/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=18OW1OJ7SHU0F&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.JSCCp7cMzHYl926ph94huzUH8e6nS5VFbeyXnBuWHk_8xfeA3aYMNGdbPKf51RTbatD5MJ6psFT9Md-wcXMohLMIVZMTtZYFZPkdvMPLieZem163A_H5xch8hiTt28hByPAtMm3xFqIUtQ9GLpkOI_5Pr7TzJ8Fw7bfiYqt36gnx4yeJSb8a4eOSff3p5QJ04oLY9PUNBdGPtxcILt_ung.cTeFXFI-PZaMPhyBZtFcJ7mIY2k4Kkq1fTEIafAEsxs&dib_tag=se&keywords=ray+scott+percival&qid=1728763752&sprefix=ray+scott+percival+%2Caps%2C156&sr=8-1; https://open.spotify.com/artist/3B1Bh10uUljUX9iNmPOYZo?si=NWnRyuv1T7aHRGWZIXZYzA)…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 94: Stephen Hicks on Critical Rationalism vs Objectivism 1:01:44
1:01:44 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:01:44
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedThis episode we interview Professor of Philosophy Stephen Hicks. In his excellent books Explaining Postmodernism and Nietzsche and the Nazis it becomes clear that the history of bad and good ideas—which he sees through the lens of Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment philosophers—is more than an academic issue but something with monumental importance for human life and prosperity. Rather than focus on this aspect of his work, which is widely known, we thought we’d ask him questions on epistemology, focusing on contrasting critical rationalism and objectivism.…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 93: Philosophical Theories vs Bad Explanations 2:07:05
2:07:05 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked2:07:05
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedCan philosophical theories be refuted? What is a bad explanation? Can all theories be made more empirical? In search of an answer to these questions, Bruce takes a deep dive into what he believes is the correct way to apply “Popper’s ratchet” to metaphysical or philosophical theories. Along the way, Bruce puts forward a generalization of testability he calls “checkability” and explains why “vague-maning” our theories is “worse than dogmatism.”…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 92: Popper on Philosophical Theories 1:55:50
1:55:50 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:55:50
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedContinuing from episode 91, we continue our deep dive into Popper's Conjectures and Refutations Chapter 8 where Popper explains how to use his epistemology on philosophical theories that (by definition) can't be 'refuted'. Despite agreeing with most of Popper's specific arguments, we offer some considerable criticisms to Popper's approach to criticizing philosophical theories -- particularly to Popper's criticisms of the theory of Determinism which is a 'best theory' by any fair standard but Popper (incorrectly) thought was false. Bruce argues that Popper's approach in C&R Ch. 8 is problematic because it opens the 'Crit Rat Loophole', which is a common way CritRats interpret Popper that allows any preferred theory to be declare a 'best theory' based on the scantest of criticisms. Bruce argues that Chapter 8 of C&R fails in this important regard because it doesn't give a good answer to the question "How does one tell the difference between a good philosophical explanation and a bad explanation?"…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 91: The Critical Rationalist Case For Induction!? 1:45:46
1:45:46 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:45:46
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedForgive the clickbait title. The episode should probably actually be called "The (Lack of) Problem of Induction" because we primarily cover Popper's refutation of induction in C&R Chapter 8. This episode starts our deep dive into answering the question "What is the difference between a good philosophical explanation and a bad explanation?" To answer that question we go over Karl Popper's "On the Status of Science and of Metaphysics" from his book Conjectures and Refutations Chapter 8. In this chapter Popper first explains why he believes 'there is no such thing as induction' (from page 18 of Logic of Scientific Discovery) by offering his historical and logical refutation of induction. In this episode we go over Popper's refutation of induction in chapter 8 of C&R in detail and then compare it to Tom Mitchell's (of Machine Learning fame) argument of the 'futility of bias free learning.' We show that Mitchell's and Popper's arguments are actually the same argument even though Mitchell argues for the existence of a kind of induction as used in machine learning. Bruce argues that the difference is not a conceptual or theoretical difference but just a difference in use of language and that the two men are actually conceptually fully in agreement. This makes machine learning both a kind of 'induction' (though not the kind Popper refuted) and also gives machine learning an interesting and often missed relationship with critical rationalism. Then Bruce asks the most difficult question of all: "Is there anyone out there in the world other than me that is interested in exploring how to apply Karl Popper's epistemology to machine learning like this?" You can find a copy of Mitchell's text here if you want to check out his argument for the futility of bias free learning for yourself. As I mention in the podcast, I'm shocked Critical Rationalists aren't referencing Mitchell's argument constantly because it is so strongly critical rationalist in nature. But the whole textbook is just like this.…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 90: Bayesianism for Critical Rationalists!? 2:55:47
2:55:47 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked2:55:47
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedToday our guest Ivan Phillips methodically explains what Bayesianism is and is not. Along the way we discuss the validity of critiques made by critical rationalists of the worldview that is derived from Thomas Bayes’s 1763 theorem. Ivan is a Bayesian that is very familiar with Karl Popper's writings and even admires Popper's epistemology. Ivan makes his case that Bayesian epistemology is the correct way to reason and that Karl Popper misunderstood some aspects of how to properly apply probability theory to reasoning and inference. (Due in part to those theories being less well developed back in Popper's time.) This is a video podcast if you watch it on Spotify. But it should be consumable as just audio. But I found Ivan's slides quite useful. This is by far the best explanations for Bayesianism that I've ever seen and it does a great job of situating it in a way that makes sense to a critical rationalist like myself. But it still didn't convince me to be a Bayesian. ;)…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 89: Tradition as a Source of Knowledge: Popper vs. Chesterton 1:26:19
1:26:19 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:26:19
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedThis week we discuss the book Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton (1908), perhaps the most famous defense of the Christian tradition. We contrast this with Karl Popper’s talk, “Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition” (1948), from his collection of essays, Conjectures and Refutations. We consider: What is the role of tradition in science and knowledge? Is there a relationship between liberalism and Christianity? Is Chesterton actually a rationalist? What are the paradoxes of Christianity? Is there a link between madness and rationality? Follow us on Twitter: https://x.com/bnielson01…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 88: The Myth of the Objective 1:25:37
1:25:37 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:25:37
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedHere Bruce reflects on AI researcher Kenneth Stanley’s assertion that setting specific, measurable goals may actually hinder discovery and innovation, which he writes about in his book, Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective . How does Stanley’s insight relate to critical rationalism, education, and life in general? We cover topics including: Why are objective sometimes misleading? When are objectives appropriate and when are they misleading? How did Stanley and his team discover the problems with objectives? How does this relate to the problem of open-endedness ? How did he implement a program to explore alternatives? What was the result? What are implications for AI/AGI, scientific research, and education? How does these theories relate to Darwinian evolution and Popperian epistemology? Are natural selection and biological evolution the same thing? How important is 'selection' to knowledge creation? Follow us on Twitter: https://x.com/bnielson01…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 87: Is the Universal Explainer Hypothesis Falsifiable? 2:06:33
2:06:33 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked2:06:33
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedIs the universal explainer hypothesis falsifiable? How does the concept of universality relate to human minds? Is anything truly beyond human comprehension? And how would you frame universality as an interesting topic at a party? This week we also feature a guest, Dan Gish, a fellow traveler Bruce has connected with on Twitter. Dan (on Twitter) had questions about if the incomprehensibility of LLMs refuted the universal explainer hypothesis. This was Bruce's attempt to give him an honest answer to Dan's questions. Follow us on Twitter .…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 86: Fuzzy Categories, Essentialism, and Epistemology (Hofstadter Part 2) 1:42:39
1:42:39 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:42:39
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedHow do humans form 'fuzzy categories'? How does this all relate to essentialism? Is essentialism false? Or is it partially true? And how does this all relate to Critical Rationalism? Picking up where we left off last week, Bruce gets deeper into Douglas Hofstadter’s ideas on language and the mind and his assertion that “analogy-making lies at the heart of intelligence.” Bruce considers how Hofstadter’s theories may be interwoven with ideas on language and cognition promoted by Steven Pinker in "How the Mind Works" along with, as usual, the epistemology of Karl Popper and David Deutsch. We again consider if this is an inductive theory? And how should critical rationalists view theories like this? Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bnielson01…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 85: Critical Rationalism and Douglas Hofstadter (Part 1) 1:49:52
1:49:52 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:49:52
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedThis is the first of our two part series (that may or may not be released back-to-back) where Bruce delves into the work Douglas Hofstadter, specifically the book Surfaces and Essences. We consider what is the relationship—if there is any—between critical rationalism and Hofstadter's idea that analogy is a core mechanism of human cognition. Is it fair to criticize Hofstadter's ideas as being inductivism in disguise? Could something like what Hofstadter suggests (i.e. analogy) be central to human consciousness and creation of AGI? Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bnielson01…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 84: Are Video Games Harmful to Children? 1:27:46
1:27:46 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:27:46
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedHere we discuss a 1992 interview with David Deutsch where he makes the case that video games are inherently educational, not addictive, and that children should not be stopped from playing as much as they want. We contrast the view of humans, science, and knowledge promoted there by David Deutsch with the more pessimistic view of thinkers such as Jonathan Haidt today. Bruce and Peter reflect on their own mixed feelings on this issue both as critical rationalists and parents. David Deutsch on video games: https://takingchildrenseriously.com/video-games-a-unique-educational-environment/ Peter briefly quotes from this recent article by Jonathan Haidt: https://www.thefp.com/p/jonathan-haidt-worried-about-the-boys-too Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bnielson01…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 83: Popper's Second Axis (aka Bruce's Epistemology?) 2:01:24
2:01:24 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked2:01:24
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedBruce summarizes his (unique?) understanding of Karl Popper’s epistemology that (possibly?) straddles the line between orthodox and unorthodox and is Influenced both by Deutsch, more old school Popperians, and his own unique interpretation of critical rationalism. Bruce claims that the key difference between regular "folk epistemology" (i.e. how humans reason without a correct understanding of epistemology) and "Popper's epistemology" (aka "Critical Rationalism" or the correct epistemology) is due to Popper's epistemology having a 'second axis' that regular folk epistemology entirely lacks. This 'second axis' is rooted in a choice to make your theories bold and risky by maximizing empirical content. This makes Popper's epistemology 2-dimensional instead of 1-dimensional. If this fact is missed, Bruce claims your epistemology collapses back to be regular old folk epistemology and you are no longer doing critical rationalism. Refutation, corroboration, explanation, induction, falsification, verisimilitude, “the Popperian war on words,” and “Popper’s ratchet” -- from past podcasts! -- are all touched upon. Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bnielson01…
T
The Theory of Anything
In an episode that may (or may not) be his magnum opus, Bruce introduces his term for Karl Popper’s idea that you are only allowed to solve problems with your (scientific) theory by making it more empirical, not less empirical. Bruce makes the case that this is one of Karl Popper’s least appreciated ideas, as all of us are tempted by ad hoc saves that move our ideas in the direction of vagueness. Bruce also considers where conjectures come from and if Popper thought there existed a scientific method.…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 81: Easy to Varyness vs Ad Hocness 2:14:02
2:14:02 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked2:14:02
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedBruce sympathetically critiques David Deutsch’s concept of “easy to varyness” as a way to judge our explanations. Are our best theories about reality truly hard to vary? Bruce makes the case that Popper’s concept of “ad hocness” may be a strangely interwoven concept. Along the way we get deeper into whether Popperian epistemology is best seen as an attitude or a methodology.…
T
The Theory of Anything
1 Episode 80: Knowledge vs. Simul-Knowledge 1:44:34
1:44:34 Play Later Play Later Lists Like Liked1:44:34
Play Later Play Later Lists Like LikedBruce wraps up his epic 6 part series on knowledge and the 'two sources hypothesis' (i.e. Deutsch's theory that all 'knowledge' comes from only two sources: Biological evolution and human minds). What happens if we take all the non-two sources examples of 'adapted information that cause itself to remain so' (e.g. the walking robot, the immune system, trade secrets, animal learning, animal memes, etc.) and give them their own theory distinct from the theory of 'knowledge'? Sort of like a theory of "a simulacrum of knowledge" (to uses Deutsch's own term) or "Simul-Knowledge" for short. This turns out to be remarkably easy: you just take the constructor theory of knowledge without any implicit additional criteria. Doing this has immediate profound implications that impact how we see and understand Deutsch's theory of knowledge. Like to a version of the drawing Bruce refers to throughout the episode.…
Welcome to Player FM!
Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.
Daily Deals
Similar to The Theory of Anything
The simplest questions often have the most complex answers. The Philosopher's Zone is your guide through the strange thickets of logic, metaphysics and ethics.
…
continue reading
Travel, at its best, changes the way we see the world. Join us each week as we dig into stories from people who took a trip—and came home transformed. Travel Tales by Afar is your ticket to the world, no passport required.
…
continue reading
David Edmonds (Uehiro Centre, Oxford University) and Nigel Warburton (freelance philosopher/writer) interview top philosophers on a wide range of topics. Two books based on the series have been published by Oxford University Press. We are currently self-funding - donations very welcome via our website http://www.philosophybites.com
…
continue reading
Stephen Fry's 7 Deady Sins - I will take each one of the Seven Sins in turn, lay them out on the surgical table and poke, prod, pry and provoke in an attempt to try to anatomise and understand them; I hope and believe it will be, if nothing else, delicious fun and something of a change from the usual run of podcastery. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
…
continue reading
Peter Adamson, Professor of Philosophy at the LMU in Munich and at King's College London, takes listeners through the history of philosophy, "without any gaps". www.historyofphilosophy.net
…
continue reading
Imperfect Paradise is an award-winning weekly narrative podcast showcasing California stories with universal significance, hosted by Antonia Cereijido. Each deeply reported story is driven by characters who illuminate aspects of American identity and underscore California's reputation as a home for dreamers and schemers, its heartbreaking inequality, its varied and diverse communities, its unique combination of dense cities and wild places. New episodes premiere Wednesdays, with broadcasts o ...
…
continue reading
Bullseye is a celebration of the best of arts and culture in public radio form. Host Jesse Thorn sifts the wheat from the chaff to bring you in-depth interviews with the most revered and revolutionary minds in our culture. Bullseye has been featured in Time, The New York Times, GQ and McSweeney's, which called it "the kind of show people listen to in a more perfect world."
…
continue reading
Join two of the stars from Real Housewives of Potomac, Gizelle Bryant and Robyn Dixon, as they team up for their new podcast Reasonably Shady. The show features conversations about being fearless women as they recount stories from their exciting lives. Topics include dating, relationships, marriage, entrepreneurs, motherhood, style, glam, current events and more! Join Gizelle and Robyn for Reasonably Shady!
…
continue reading
Rabbi Shalom Rosner on The Parsha
…
continue reading
Leading thinkers discuss the ideas shaping our lives – looking back at the news and making links between past and present. Broadcast as Free Thinking, Fridays at 9pm on BBC Radio 4. Presented by Matthew Sweet, Shahidha Bari and Anne McElvoy.
…
continue reading
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Go offline with the Player FM app!
