Episode 147: Decisionalism

This week Bruce asks more hard questions: Is our legal system “decisionalist”? In other words, are we outcome-based rather than reasoning-based creatures? Is there something deep in our brains they tells us to go with what feels correct, even if we are Supreme Court justices? Is our reasoning mostly de facto when we are really honest with ourselves? Does a careful look at the state of the critical discussion really help us decide between theories, especially in politics and morality?This episode is a review of Justin Driver’s The Insignificance of Judicial Opinions. Driver argues that when it comes to judicial opinions, it is the decisions that matter, not the reasoning used to justify them. But if that’s true, doesn’t it raise a deeper problem for the critical rationalist idea that explanatory power is king?⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

What Bruce has called the “put up or shut up principle” is the idea we should want our theories to take on the burden of explanation as must as we can. We need to "put up" an at least equally content filled theory as a competitor to another content filled theory. He argues that this may be central idea behind critical rationalism. We strengthen our theories by increasing the potential set of falsifiers. This is how knowledge grows. Bruce is pointing out that we all like to change the goal post when we look at our own pet theories. But shouldn’t we strive to not have double standards if we care about moving towards truth?⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

This week Bruce takes a deep dive into Pascal’s Wager. If there is even a small chance that God exists, and believing could lead to an infinite reward while disbelief risks an infinite loss, then believing is the rational choice... right?Blaise Pascal was one of the founders of probability theory back in the 17th century. Even aside from the potentially problematic theological point his famous wager makes, it also raises important questions about probability theory, Bayes’ theorem, and even modern Bayesian epistemology. How do we handle situations where the potential payoff is enormous—or even infinite?Pascal's Wager is also the thread we pull that unravels Bayesian Epistemology, while also showing why Bayesian Reasoning is really part of Critical Rationalism.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

This week we talk about meaning memes, words, concepts, and conceptual leakage. How is a meaning meme turned into a broader concept and then a theory? What is the role of language in this process?And what is conceptual leakage? And why does it make it difficult to communicate to others?And was Popper right to eschew questions of meaning? And what does this have to do with AGI?⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Bruce returns to AGI through the lens of a critical rationalist debate about whether or not AGI is theoretically possible. Can human intelligence be replicated? Is this a physics question or a biology question? Is our universe and our minds like a compact disc or like a vinyl record?But really, Bruce is just using the AGI debate to explore an epistemological idea: that the state of a critical discussion is objective. If two people disagree about the state of a critical discussion, at least one of them must be misunderstanding that state—possibly both of them. It’s possible they are genuinely disagreeing over something factual, but more often than not they are really just disagreeing over epistemology.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Is so-called "self-deception" a real thing? How can one at once be aware that something is true and yet also be unaware of it? Is it even a coherent concept? Doesn't deception require at least two entities—the deceived and the deceiver? Can "self-deception" be explained as something much simpler, namely deception?Bruce summarizes his views on self-deception, moralizing, and dogmatism from a critical rationalist perspective, as well as it's relevance for AGI, "Super Intelligences", and human dogmatism.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

This week we are joined for the 4th time by physicist Sam Kuypers. From his Conjecture Institute profile: “Quantum physicist, interested in foundational questions. In his research, published in reputable scientific journals, he explores the quantum theory of time, the many-worlds interpretation, and locality.”We discuss: Is probability theory true? Is it useful? What is the connection between probability theory and physics? Does the many worlds interpretation make probability theory more true or less true?⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Ad hoc saves and immunizing stratagems are phrases Karl Popper used to describe moves humans make when we try to protect our theories from refutation. We all do this every day in one way or another.But immunizing stratagems hurts theories in that this move makes our ideas overall less convincing to other people. Marxism and psychoanalysis are the classic areas where Popper saw true believers bend over backward to save these theories from refutation from the real world. This was the main topic of The Myth of the Closed Mind by Ray Scott Percival, who we interviewed a few episodes ago. So when ideas come into contact with human minds, theories or memes that move us closer to truth have a survival advantage. So as flawed as we are, humans—all humans—cannot help but seek truth, fallibly of course. Bruce reads a lot from Ray’s book on this episode, especially from chapter 4, “Ideologies as Shapeshifters.” Please consider ordering Ray’s excellent book, which is also available on Audible. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

This week we talk about doomers, specifically AI doomers. Why has it become such a popular notion, especially amongst those who consider themselves the most rational kinds of people, that this kind of apocalypse, amongst others, is imminent? What assumptions are behind this pessimistic assertion?This episode was actually entirely unplanned. We started recording another episode and got off on to this tangent and thought it was a fun topic.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Bruce has made a controversial claim on this show: today's "CritRats" (Critical Rationalists on X) have drifted from what Popper intended. And surprisingly, some of the drift traces back to David Deutsch's reinterpretation of Popper in an attempt to solve real problems with Popper's original epistemology.In this episode, Bruce unpacks exactly how — tracing the key points where Deutsch and Popper diverge: verisimilitude, demarcation, testability vs. criticism, and what "refutation" actually meant to Popper (hint: not what you think). A sympathetic but rigorous look at where "Deutschianism" improves on "Popperianism" and where it quietly smuggles in new problems.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠