Episode 104: 3rd Way Evolution vs the Critics

What precisely is a static vs dynamic society? It is possible to take this down to the level of machine learning? Could this distinction turn into a testable theory? What are the alternatives to what Deutsch proposes? Is Deutsch's theory of static societies testable? What exactly is a culture or criticism and how is this intertwined with the Enlightenment? Which came first: the Enlightenment or the Scientific Revolution?⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

We once again get together some of the smartest people we know for a discussion that gets into foundational issues, this time in the form of the classic battle between the dystopian novels 1984 and Brave New World. But it was really much less of a debate than a discussion in line with Popper’s defining principle of critical rationalism: “I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.”Guests: Vaden Masrani (Increments podcast, X: @Vaden Masrani) Sam Kuypers (X: @Sam_kuyp) David Wainwright⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

In 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 Patreon⁠Ivan's "Probability and Purpose: A Refutation of Divine Intent"Ivan's "Textbook Rationality"

This 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

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

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

This 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

How 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

This 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 CenturySupport us on Patreon

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?Taleb's original article found here.Support us on Patreon⁠