Episode 126: The Concept of Concepts

What is a concept? What is a theory? And was Karl Popper right when he said theories are “100 times more valuable” than concepts? But where do conjectures come from?We go over Popper's own writing about concepts and his explanation for why he feels they are less valuable than theories. Does this prove Bruce wrong from back in episode 112 where he claimed concepts are more valuable than words? What would Popper say?

This week we welcome back Micah Redding of the Christian Transhumanist podcast. We had a joyful conversation touching on religion, science fiction, and teleology. We look at the ways science fiction and fantasy triggers our moral intuitions regarding what kind of universe we live in with respect to meaning. Do we live in an inherently meaningful universe (teleology); a meaning neutral universe in line with existentialism, materialism, or naturalism; or an actively-malevolent Lovecraftian universe?⁠⁠Support us on Patreon

Bruce compares Donald Campbell’s evolutionary epistemology and David Deutsch’s ideas on infinite knowledge growth. What is knowledge growth? Is it a rare thing limited to only biological evolution and human ideas, as Deutsch seems to argue? (Does he argue that?) Or is it a ubiquitous process that happens all around us at all levels of nature as Campbell argues?Is knowledge created in human minds an incremental process, as Campbell might emphasize, based on blind variation and selection? Or as Deutsch might emphasize, is this a cosmically significant, open-ended process based on creativity and explanation?Can these two great thinkers ideas be reconciled or are they in contradiction to each other?⁠Support us on Patreon

In this shorter episode Bruce takes a deep dive into logical fallacies. How useful are logical fallacies? Does pointing out a logical fallacy help correct errors? Does doing so make us more rational? Can we become more logical by avoiding ad hominem attacks, not straw-manning or appealing to authority, and avoiding slippery slopes? And is there a difference between a logical fallacy and a rational fallacy? If so, which is more important?⁠Support us on Patreon

In our previous episode covering Strevens' critique of Popper, we briefly touched on why Bruce believes it it a mistake for CritRats to say they don't believe in beliefs. This time Bruce takes a deep dive into beliefs -- and walks back his previous statement a bit. Do humans need beliefs? Are beliefs dangerous? What is the critical rationalist position on beliefs? What did Popper say? And can we even realistically live without beliefs?And along the way, Bruce criticizes "the disobedience criteria" as a way to make his point about the value -- and dangers -- of mythic belief systems and why we need them and why they can confuse us rationally. ⁠Support us on Patreon

This week Bruce puts Popper on trial. Specifically, through the lens of Michael Stevens’s book, The Knowledge Machine, which argues that science works because it follows the “iron law of explanation” where scientists must (at least in public) put aside philosophy, politics, and theology and only follow empirical evidence. Bruce asks, how compatible is this view with the epistemology of Karl Popper?And does Strevens' critique of Popper ring true? Or is it a strawman?

This week we interview Logan Chipkin. Logan is a writer and author of several books. Recently he co-authored and published The Sovereign Child about raising children without coercion, and The Lords of the Cosmos, which tells the story of progress through the lens of good philosophy. Logan is also the president of Conjecture Institute, which is a brand new organization dedicated to promoting the worldview of Karl Popper and David Deutsch. (Follow on X)Here we discuss the New Right vs libertarianism. We consider: What is the core difference between liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism? Why are so many libertarians into conspiracy theories? How are we to think about Popperian arguments against utopianism applied to libertarians? Does it make sense for an anarcho-capitalist to be hawkish on military intervention in places like Ukraine? And why have mainstream conservatives strayed so far from making intellectual arguments for their positions as they may have in the days or Milton Friedman?What criticisms can be correctly leveled against the Right today, especially economically but also in terms of their methods. And what does the New Right 'get right' according to Logan?Right wing resources suggested by Logan:The DispatchCommentary Magazine PodcastNational Review PodcastThe Politically Incorrect Guide to American HistoryThe Right: The Hundred-Year War for American ConservatismRadicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement⁠Support us on Patreon

This week we talk to Micah Redding, the host of the Christian Transhumanist podcast. We discuss: What is the significance of a singularity? What is free will from a many worlds perspective? Does Omega Point cosmology solve the problem of evil? And most importantly, will my sweet dog Jojo join me in the afterlife?

This week we had the absolute honor of interviewing Jonathan Rauch. Rauch is an extremely influential public intellectual (journalist and author) who is also a Popperian. His 1993 book, Kindly Inquisitors, makes the epistemic case for free speech. It is a stone cold classic that will be with us for a long time. In his 2021 sequel, The Constitution of Knowledge, he considers how society collectively produces knowledge and the dangers of misinformation. He has also written a book that provided the “intellectual framework” for the case for same sex marriage. (link) And though he says he's a Jewish atheist, his latest book, Cross Purposes, is a critical, yet reverential, book on Christianity making the case that our society needs more and not less Christianity. Follow Jonathan Rauch on X.⁠Support us on Patreon

This week Bruce take a deep critical rationalist dive into Michael Strevens’s book, The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, which is an attempt to describe how science is a self-correcting system designed to create knowledge based on explanation. The book is somewhat critical of Popperian falsification, though the reading of Popper presented may be a superficial reading. Bruce describes how Strevens’s “iron rule of science” or the idea that we should settle science based on empirical tests overlaps with what Bruce calls “Popper’s ratchet,” or the idea that we should strive to move our theories to be more testable and avoid ad hoc saves designed to make our theories less testable.Is there anything we can learn from a (semi) Bayesian / Inductivist like Strevens that we Popperians don't already know?Perhaps more interestingly, Strevens' theory is meant to explain why we got stuck in static societies for so long. How does his theory compared to Deutsch's?