Episode 113: Evolution, Collective Minds, and Static Societies

This week we consider: Is falsification falsifiable? Was Popper a “naive falsificationist”? Why do so many people think he was? (Including at least one of his own students!)Is falsification itself a philosophical theory that makes it immune from falsification? Does the Duhem-Quine problem, or the assertion that theory exist in an interwoven web of other theories, create a problem for falsification? What exactly is falsification anyhow? It's about showing that a theory is false, right? Right? Popper?Bruce considers these questions and more as our infinite journey into epistemology continues.

Starting in the 1950s, Popperian Donald Campbell developed a theory of "evolutionary epistemology" (coining that term in the process) that expanded Karl Popper’s ideas about scientific knowledge and learning into the natural world. Campbell intended a universal theory of how 'all increases in fit of system to environment' work based on a meta-algorithm (or class of algorithms sharing certain features) he called blind-variation-and-selective-retention. Could it be that nature creates knowledge through processes analogous to biological natural selection? How far reaching is Popper’s theory? Could this be how cultures create knowledge? Perhaps this even has cosmological implications. Is this just how the universe works?And what did Karl Popper think of Campbell's evolutionary epistemology?This episode attempts to summarize two of Campbell's less available papers on the subject as a resource for critical rationalists. In future podcasts we'll challenge Campbell's views and also discuss the myriad of possible interpretations of his theory as well as the CritRat communities response to his theory.

This week Bruce takes a deep dive into anthropologist Joseph Henrich’s book: The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter.Bruce outlines Henrich's hypothesis that human evolution occurs at the level of culture as much as genes and that this collective mind may be far superior to any individual. Bruce considers ways this theory may or may not be consistent with David Deutsch’s ideas on static and dynamic societies. What we can learn about the details of life in a static society from Henrich's evidence? How might this evidence change our perceptions of Deutsch's theory?⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

Bruce first explains the difference between arguing over concepts vs arguing over words. Then Bruce examines assertions about probability and randomness in the critical rationalist community. Why does David Deutsch insist that there is no such thing as 'randomness'? What does the many worlds interpretation really say about this? Is all 'randomness' really just pseudo-randomness? Is this really a conflict between concepts or just an argument over words?⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

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