Podcast appearances and mentions of james owen weatherall

Professor Cailin O’Connor is philosopher of biology and behavioral sciences, philosopher of science, and evolutionary game theorist.  She is a Professor in the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and recently finished co-administering the NSF grant “Consensus, Democracy, and the Public Understanding of Science” with philosopher of physics James Owen Weatherall (previous NSF grant Social Dynamics […]

It's hard to solve a problem when some people don't even believe that it exists. Researcher Cailin O'Connor joins to talk about the spread of climate misinformation- and what we can do about it. Show notes from Chris: Sadly, action on the climate crisis has been badly delayed by huge amounts of disinformation and misinformation, and much of it orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry. If you want to learn more, the groundbreaking book “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway is an absolute must-read. Click here for a very powerful article about what happened between Fred Singer and Roger Revelle. Cailin O'Connor and James Owen Weatherall's wonderfully insightful and hugely readable book is “The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread”. I can't recommend it enough. Other great advice on how to beat misinformation is by treating it as a ‘virus', described in the fascinating book “Foolproof” by Sander van der Linden. One super promising approach is to ‘inoculate' ourselves by debunking misinformation before it takes hold. There's a great review and summary here. Oh, and that argument about bird kills and wind farms? Recent work by Erik Katovich has published a US-wide study in the scientific journal Environmental Science & Technology and found no measurable impact on bird populations around wind turbines. But this study found a 15% decline around fossil fuel developments, like shale oil and gas production, the opposite to what's often claimed… See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

James Owen Weatherall is Professor of Logic and the Philosophy of Science and Department Chair at the University of California, Irvine, where he is also a member of the Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Science, the Center for Cosmology, and the Jack W. Peltason Center for the Study of Democracy. Jim is a physicist, mathematician, and philosopher, and works broadly on  the mathematical and conceptual foundations of classical and quantum field theories, as well as the philosophy of science more generally, though he has plenty of other interests, such as model building in finance. In this episode, Robinson and Jim discuss nothingness and the physics of the void, beginning with the debate between Leibniz and Newton on the nature of space, moving through the revolution ushered in by Einstein's special and general relativity, and ending with the quantum vacuum state. Jim's Website: http://jamesowenweatherall.com Void: https://a.co/d/eEwbGCh OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:49 Introduction 03:04 MFA, PhD, PhD 06:04 Physics and Metaphysics 16:00 Newton, Leibniz, and the Debate Over Absolute Space 39:32 How Did Einstein Change Our Understanding of Space? 01:03:28 How Does Quantum Theory Change Our Classical Picture of the World 01:14:15 Fields and the Quantum Mechanics of the Void Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

TEMPORADA 1/2023 __________________________________________________________ Título Libro (Español): La era de la desinformación.  Título Libro (Inglés - Original): The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread.  Autores: Cailin O'Connor & James Owen Weatherall. Revisor: Miguel Peñafiel. TEMAS TRATADOS  La era de desinformación como episodio que atravesamos al pasar el tiempo. Construcción del conocimiento dentro de los círculos científicos. Todos los científicos eventualmente tienen una verdadera curiosidad para poder desvelar algún fenómeno y llegar a algunas conclusiones respecto de un sistema que se está estudiando. El efecto en la práctica científica que genera la influencia de terceras personas. Polarización de argumentos a través de las redes sociales. IDEA PRINCIPAL: Los autores nos muestran un panorama actual en el cuál podemos obtener bastante información no verdadera que genera consecuencias en la sociedad generalmente dañinas, adentrándose en las razones no solo psicológicas, sino culturales del porqué es irrelevante para muchas personas verificar la veracidad de sus creencias. ARGUMENTO DE LOS AUTORES: La dinámica social de los "hechos alternativos" que ocurren hoy en día genera repercusión en tu entorno, por que lo que tú crees depende de a quién tú conoces. __________________________________________________________ No olvides comentarnos: ¿Qué aprendizaje te llevas del episodio? Ya sea en la caja de preguntas y respuestas en Spotify o en un post a través de redes sociales, puedes etiquetarnos como @bookmovementco para que sigamos la conversación.   Disfruta el episodio :)   ÍNDICE  00:00:00 Introducción, presentación y bienvenida del invitado revisor. 00:01:36 Presentación del libro. 00:03:19 Inicio Revisión. 00:04:02 Breve resumen de los autores. ¿Quiénes son Cailin O'Connor & James Owen Weatherall?. 00:07:19 ¿Vivimos en la era de la desinformación?. 00:11:48 ¿Cómo obtenemos el conocimiento científico?. 00:19:28 Caso de la contaminación con mercurio en EEUU. 00:23:34 Interacciones dentro de las comunidades científicas. 00:27:42 La evangelización de las personas ejemplificada con las tabacaleras. 00:30:23 El caso de Lady Mary Montangu. 00:33:36 Aplicación de los modelos en el mundo acerca de la propagación de información o desinformación. 00:41:58 Conclusiones. ¿Cómo se puede manejar la desinformación?. 00:44:30 Inicio de las preguntas. 00:44:15 P1 Breve resumen del mecanismo de cómo los sistemas de creencias falsas se construyen y se propagan. 00:48:30 P2 ¿Cómo se podría mitigar la desinformación en Latinoamérica?. 00:52:37 P3 ¿Cómo podemos equilibrar la nesecidad de proteger la libertad de expresión con la necesidad de evitar la propagacion de la desinformación?. 00:56:45 P4 ¿Qué podriamos hacer individualmente para contrarrestar la desinformación a nivel sociedad?. 01:02:03 P5 ¿Cómo democratizar el conocimiento para que deje de ser técnico?. 01:05:30 P6 ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre saber algo y creer en algo?. 01:12:30 P7 ¿Qué harias con una persona terraplanista?. 01:15:50 P8 ¿Existe una diferencia concreta entre la dinámica de publicación en latinoamérica que el autor no tome en cuenta en el libro?. 01:22:52 Palabras finales. 01:23:22 Créditos Equipo SBM.

0:00:00 Introduction Richard Saunders 0:04:30 You Can Count on Adrienne. Wiki UFOs This week Adrienne takes a look at some of the many UFOs reports from the first half of the 20th century as recorded on Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings 0:17:11 Australian Skeptics Newsletter What skeptical news has caught the eye of Tim Mendham this week? Read by Adrienne Hill. http://www.skeptics.com.au 0:30:48 Vale Rex Gilroy One of Australia's all time great characters from the world of cryptozoology has died. We look back at some of the media reports about Rex and his decades long search for mysterious animals. Maynard interviews Rex Gilroy for the Skeptic Zone. https://skepticzone.libsyn.com/the-skeptic-zone-291-16may2014 0:42:02 A Dive into a Trove A wander through the decades of digitised Australian newspapers on a search for references to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. 1922.05.08 - The Daily Telegraph - Sydney 1923.06.05 - Singleton Argus 1928.07.21 - The Register - SA 1930.07.07 - The Daily Pictorial - Sydney 1930.07.12 - Northern Star - Lismore 1930.07.29 - Border Watch - SA http://www.trove.nla.gov.au Also   10 Years Ago The Skeptic Zone #235 - 20.April.2013 Richard Saunders in Olomouc, the Czech Republic - A chat with Jakub Ráliš from the AFO48 Festival. What is AFO? Find out this long running festival - The Enemies of Reason - at AFO48 Richard Saunders introduces the film by Dr. Richard Dawkins - A quick chat with Rebecca Watson Rebecca was also a guest of the festival. - The winner of the international science film competition at AFO48. Jury member Bechara Saab annouces the winning film, The Grammar of Happiness. Other jury members were Irina Belykh and Richard Saunders - QED in Manchester. A chat with Michael Marshall and Geoff Whelan and many other people at QED - A Week in Science with Dr Paul Willis - Maynard interviews James Owen Weatherall about his book, 'The Physics of Wall Street'. https://skepticzone.libsyn.com/the-skeptic-zone-235-20-april-2013

Jim talks with James Owen Weatherall about his work on viewing general relativity as an effective field theory and where it should give way to another theory.  General relativity does a very good job of describing the world we see in astronomical observations, but certain results, e.g. singularities, and certain limits, e.g. the Planck scale, hint that there should be another theory that supersedes it.  Jim Weatherall argues that this is in a high curvature regime.Show Notes: http://frontiers.physicsfm.com/66 

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Comment on "Endogenous Epistemic Factionalization", published by Zack_M_Davis on the LessWrong. In "Endogenous Epistemic Factionalization" (due in a forthcoming issue of the philosophy-of-science journal Synthese), James Owen Weatherall and Cailin O'Connor propose a possible answer to the question of why people form factions that disagree on multiple subjects. The existence of persistent disagreements is already kind of a puzzle from a Bayesian perspective. There's only one reality. If everyone is honestly trying to get the right answer and we can all talk to each other, then we should converge on the right answer (or an answer that is less wrong given the evidence we have). The fact that we can't do it is, or should be, an embarrassment to our species. And the existence of correlated persistent disagreements—when not only do I say "top" when you say "bottom" even after we've gone over all the arguments for whether it is in fact the case that top or bottom, but furthermore, the fact that I said "top" lets you predict that I'll probably say "cold" rather than "hot" even before we go over the arguments for that, is an atrocity. (Not hyperbole. Thousands of people are dying horrible suffocation deaths because we can't figure out the optimal response to a new kind of coronavirus.) Correlations between beliefs are often attributed to ideology or tribalism: if I believe that Markets Are the Answer, I'm likely to propose Market-based solutions to all sorts of seemingly-unrelated social problems, and if I'm loyal to the Green tribe, I'm likely to selectively censor my thoughts in order to fit the Green party line. But ideology can't explain correlated disagreements on unrelated topics that the content of the ideology is silent on, and tribalism can't explain correlated disagreements on narrow, technical topics that aren't tribal shibboleths. In this paper, Weatherall and O'Connor exhibit a toy model that proposes a simple mechanism that can explain correlated disagreement: if agents disbelieve in evidence presented by those with sufficiently dissimilar beliefs, factions emerge, even though everyone is honestly reporting their observations and updating on what they are told (to the extent that they believe it). The paper didn't seem to provide source code for the simulations it describes, so I followed along in Python. (Replication!) In each round of the model, our little Bayesian agents choose between repeatedly performing one of two actions, A or B, that can "succeed" or "fail." A is a fair coin: it succeeds exactly half the time. As far as our agents know, B is either slightly better or slightly worse: the per-action probability of success is either 0.5 + ɛ or 0.5 − ɛ, for some ɛ (a parameter to the simulation). But secretly, we the simulation authors know that B is better. import random ε = 0.01 def b(): return random.random() < 0.5 + ε The agents start out with a uniformly random probability that B is better. The ones who currently believe that A is better, repeatedly do A (and don't learn anything, because they already know that A is exactly a coinflip). The ones who currently believe that B is better, repeatedly do B, but keep track of and publish their results in order to help everyone figure out whether B is slightly better or slightly worse than a coinflip. class Agent: def experiment(self): results = [b() for _ in range(self.trial_count)] return results If H represents the hypothesis that B is better than A, and H − represents the hypothesis that B is worse, then Bayes's theorem says P H E P E H P H P E H P H P E H − P H − where E is the record of how many successes we got in how many times we tried action B. The likelihoods P E H and P E H − can be calculated from the probability mass function of the binomial distribution, so the agents have all the information th...

When the tides of fortune are flowing in your favour, problems can now be resolved. Even if a situation has reached a stalemate because too many obstacles stand in the way of further progress. This is because the other side's condition is not in their favour anymore and they have decided to make a strategic withdrawal, even though, they appear to be in a stronger position. For observors of the game, the situation upon the Weiqi (Go/Baduk) board has reached crisis point. There is a sense that the pressure is of such magnitude, that something has to give. And yet, any hope of success means taking huge risks! Situations like these come and go all the time. And yet, very few of us are able to take decisive advantage. Even if we have repeatedly experienced it. And unless you have access to the nuclear option and are willing to use it, the popular slogan of quote - taking massive action - unquote, is just not a card option on the table. So what's to be done about this betting connundrum? The answer is to employ Suntzu's strategy number thirteen regarding spies. Placing stones on the Weiqi (Go/Baduk) board in such a way, that one's opponent unwittingly reveals their hand or at the very least is forced to change their strategy and tactics. And by staying aware of the changes of states between the before and the after, this is the Art of Mindfulness when it comes to the Art of War. If you don't believe me, in one of the books I'm currently reading, which is called "The Physics of Wall Street: A brief history of predicting the unpredictable", by James Owen Weatherall, there is a line on page 95 (of my version) under chapter four called "Beating the Dealer" which says: Information flows and your money grows. And it has to do with an equation called the Kelly criterion or Kelly bet size. Now I won't get too deeply into this book except to inspire you to read it for yourself. Through the book's influence, I have started teaching my children the card game Blackjack or Twenty-one to help them get better at mathematics, spotting patterns as it relates to information gathering and how casinos work the numbers to always stay in profit. Without me having to do anything much, my children very quickly discovered that they enjoyed being the dealer more than betting their Easter eggs. As I've told my kids on numerous occasions, casinos very rarely go bust. But if they do, then something else is at work. The weaker white stone challenger is meant to, by the deliberate disadvantages place upon it, find creative solutions to beating the black stone master. While the black stone master's role, if he or she is not a teacher of the game, is to find the resolve to stay number one without imploding into civil war. This is partly done by using your eyes and ears to feel the pulse on the ground by learning a little about the physics of Wall Street from a higher plane of fortitude ⚔️圍棋戰聖: For further details the publisher is Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, or in Oceania by Scribe Publishing ISBN 9781921640452

Cailin O’Connor (@cailinmeister) is a philosopher of science at the University of California-Irvine. We discuss her book The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread co-authored with James Owen Weatherall. Related Links: * Do as I Say, Not as I Do, or, Conformity in Scientific Networks by James Owen Weatherall and Cailin O'Connor* How Science Spreads: Smallpox, Stomach Ulcers, and ‘The Vegetable Lamb of Tartary’: Episode of The Hidden Brain* Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda by Tim Snyder, New York Review of Books* Endogenous Epistemic Factionalization: A Network Epistemology Approach by James Owen Weatherall & Cailin O’Connor* The Natural Selection of Conservative Science by Cailin O’Connor * How to Beat Science and Influence People: Policy Makers and Propaganda in Epistemic Networks by James Owen Weatherall, Cailin O’Connor, & Justin P. Bruner Here is a transcript of this episode. Rating the Show If you enjoyed this show, please rate it on iTunes: * Go to the show’s iTunes page and click “View in iTunes”* Click “Ratings and Reviews” which is to the right of “Details”* Next to “Click to Rate” select the stars. See the full list of episodes of Half Hour of Heterodoxy >>

James Owen Weatherall is a physicist, philosopher, and mathematician. He holds graduate degrees from Harvard, the Stevens Institute of Technology, and the University of California, Irvine, where he is presently an assistant professor of logic and philosophy of science. He has written for Slate and Scientific American.James' newest book, The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread is available now and is co-authored with Cailin O'Connor (@cailinmeister).We discuss:Are we moving backwards as an intellectual society?What is causing the 'splitting' of society into two sides?We are we so tribal in our thinking?Become a Patron!Help us grow and become a Patron today: https://www.patreon.com/smartpeoplepodcastSponsors:ZipRecruiter - Try ZipRecruiter for FREE at ZipRecruiter.com/smartpeople!Petal - It's about time there was a smarter, more modern credit card company that wants to help you succeed financially! Go to petalcard.com/smart today to find out more!Manscaped - Support our sponsor Manscaped and get 20% off, free shipping, and a free travel bag with the code SMART at manscaped.com.Donate:Donate here to support the show!

On this episode of The Open Mind, we're delighted to welcome University of California, Irvine professors, Cailin O'Connor and James Owen Weatherall.Disinformation; misinformation, what is the science of how false beliefs spread? This is the critical understanding that my guest today argue is required to correct falsehoods and to ensure that they don't hijack and certainly don't monopolize the public interest.O'Connor and Weatherall have authored the new Yale University Press volume “The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread.” They argue that throughout history, social factors specifically who you know, your network of friends and family most determined whether false beliefs spread and whether they can be debunked. The authors conclude, “The worry that we can never gain complete certainty about matters of fact is irrelevant.” And as the New York Times reviewed, “O'Connor and Weatherall show how industrial interests have repeatedly exploited any whiff of uncertainty to argue against government regulation.”

On The Gist, the 2020 candidates’ proposals shouldn’t be compared to some progressive ideal, but to some of the stuff we spend taxpayer dollars on now. In the interview, the pace of technological change means we might only be catching onto malicious disinformation techniques after it’s too late to counter them. Still, scientific inquiry is useful in telling us how manipulation works. In The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread, authors Cailin O'Connor and James Owen Weatherall argue that social dynamics often trump intellectual ones in determining what we fall for, including bogus information peddled by anti-vaxxers. “You, in the right social context, would hold a lot of false beliefs too,” says O’Connor.  In the Spiel, putting the Anita Hill hearings in context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On The Gist, the 2020 candidates’ proposals shouldn’t be compared to some progressive ideal, but to some of the stuff we spend taxpayer dollars on now. In the interview, the pace of technological change means we might only be catching onto malicious disinformation techniques after it’s too late to counter them. Still, scientific inquiry is useful in telling us how manipulation works. In The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread, authors Cailin O'Connor and James Owen Weatherall argue that social dynamics often trump intellectual ones in determining what we fall for, including bogus information peddled by anti-vaxxers. “You, in the right social context, would hold a lot of false beliefs too,” says O’Connor.  In the Spiel, putting the Anita Hill hearings in context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Host Jack Russell Weinstein visits with Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, authors of "The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread." They expolore why, apart from any evidence, people's beliefs can depend on several social factors, allowing even demonstrably false beliefs to persist.

IntroductionRichard Saunders in Olomouc, the Czech Republic.0:04:40     A chat with Jakub Ráliš from the AFO48 Festival.What is AFO? Find out this long running festival.0:11:10     The Enemies of Reason - at AFO48Richard Saunders introduces the film by Dr. Richard Dawkins0:16:20     A quick chat with Rebecca WatsonRebecca was also a guest of the festival.0:18:40     The winner of the international science film competition at AFO48Jury member Bechara Saab annouces the winning film, The Grammar of Happiness. Other jury members were Irina Belykh and Richard Saunders0:24:30     QED in ManchesterA chat with Michael Marshall and Geoff Whelan and many other people at QED.0:35:50     A Week in Science with Dr Paul WillisThe Royal Institution of Australia (RiAus) is a national scientific not-for-profit organisation with a mission to ‘bring science to people and people to science’.0:39:52     Maynard's Spooky ActionMaynard interviews James Owen Weatherall about his book, 'The Physics of Wall Street'.

On Start the Week Lisa Jardine discusses how complex maths has broken free of the laboratory and now influences every aspect of our lives. James Owen Weatherall applauds the take-over of the financial world by physicists, Marcus du Sautoy revels in the numbers and Kenneth Cukier explores how big data will change everything from disease control to bargain buys. But the cultural commentator Tiffany Jenkins sounds a note of caution about a world where everything is measurable.Producer: Katy Hickman.