In this episode, Bruce explores his extended conversation with philosopher and inductivist Kieren, focusing on Kieren’s claim that Popper’s Critical Rationalism ultimately depends on induction.
Bruce then makes a striking counter-claim: that Kieren’s entire argument amounts to stripping all substantive content from his “theory” of induction and turning it into an unfalsifiable concept—essentially a word game, a kind of argument-by-tautology designed to immunize the theory from criticism. Or put another way, Kieren is turning his theory into a concept because concepts are unfalsifiable.
This leads Bruce into a deeper examination of what induction actually is—and what it isn’t. Why is “induction” such a confusing, multidimensional idea? What is the real point of contention between critical rationalists and inductivists? Did Popper truly lack a notion of “support,” as Kieren argues? And what did Popper actually say about justification—did he really reject every form of it?
And to make things even more provocative: do CritRats rely on similar linguistic maneuvers to shield their own favored theories from criticism?
D'autres épisodes de "The Theory of Anything"
Ne ratez aucun épisode de “The Theory of Anything” et abonnez-vous gratuitement à ce podcast dans l'application GetPodcast.
