Podcast appearances and mentions of Karl Popper

Dies ist wieder eine kurze Episode der konstruktiven Irritation. Ich möchte ein paar Gedanken teilen und wieder möglichst wenig eigene Wertung geben, sondern mögliche Aspekte aufzeigen und Fragen stellen. Selbstverständlich wird es auch diesmal nicht vollständig sein, aber hoffentlich zum Weiterdenken anregen. Mein neues Buch: Hexenmeister oder Zauberlehrling? Die Wissensgesellschaft in der Krise kann vorbestellt werden! Der erste Teil des Titels »Das Werdende, das ewig wirkt und lebt?« ist ein Zitat aus Faust I, am Ende werde ich das zum Ausklang etwas weiter zitieren. Das Thema ist also das Wechselspiel zwischen transendenten und trasienten Dingen und Ereignissen, beziehungsweise auch das Übergehen von einem ins andere. Transzendet bedeutet dabei in meiner Verwendung, das Überschreiten oder Hinausgehen über bestimmte Grenzen. Etwas konkrete meine ich hier zwei Dimensionien: zeitlich, also Dinge, die über den Zeithorizont etwa eines Menschen oder einer Generation gehen sowie in einem materiellen Sinne; also Dinge die das materielle transzendieren, also überschreiten. Das kann eine spirituelle Bedeutung haben, aber auch eine philosopische, etwa nach Kant. Denken wir an Dinge, die jenseits der Erfahrung und des Verstands existieren oder etwas banaler, solche die nicht materiell greifbar sind, aber dennoch von Dauer. Ich werde das gleich anhand einiger Beispiele deutlicher machen. Transient ist nun fast das Gegenteil, also Dinge oder Ereignisse, die relativ schnell vergehen, die also im Moment sind und wenig bleibende Spuren hinterlassen. Dies kann sich, wie gesagt, sowohl auf materielle wie auch geistige Aspekte beziehen. Mich beschäftigt dieses Thema nun seit einiger Zeit, weil ich glaube, dass in menschlichen Kulturen sowie im individuellen Erleben diese Aspekte der Transzendenz oder des Vergehens sehr bestimmende Faktoren sein können, ohne dabei jetzt eine konkrete Wertung einbringen zu wollen. Und zwar darum, weil diese von der konkreten Ausprägung aber auch von den individuellen Werten abhängig ist. In dieser Episode werde ich versuchen, diese Spannung an einer Reihe von Beispielen deutlich zu machen: Momente in der Zeit Theater- oder Musik-Aufführungen Bilder Kunst Gegenstände des Alltags Wissenschaft Philosophie — Karl Poppers Welt 3 Mode und Kultur Gruppe vs. Individuum Was geschieht mit Gesellschaften, die von Transzendenz dominiert sind, und mit solchen, die sie versuchen vollständig aus der Welt zu vertreiben und dann feststellt, dass viele Menschen ohne das Transzendente nicht leben können und sich dann aus dem Bauchladen der Beliebigkeit Themen suchen, die sie religiös überladen? “Whatever the cause, a time horizon extending beyond the lifetime of the individual becomes a spontaneous moral control on individual action, analogous to moral constraints extending in space at a given time.”, Thomas Sowell Wo stehen wir in der Welt? Wie gehen wir mit diesem Konflikt um? »Erfreut euch der lebendig reichen Schöne! Das Werdende, das ewig wirkt und lebt, Umfass euch mit der Liebe holden Schranken, Und was in schwankender Erscheinung schwebt, Befestigt mit dauernden Gedanken!« , Faust I Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 128: Aufbruch in die Moderne — Der Mann, der die Welt erfindet! Episode 125: Ist Fortschritt möglich? Ideen als Widergänger über Generationen Episoce 124: Zeitlos Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 98: Ist Gott tot? Ein philosophisches Gespräch mit Jan Juhani Steinmann Episode 88: Liberalismus und Freiheitsgrade, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Möllers Episode 84: (Epistemische) Krisen? Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 76: Existentielle Risiken Episode 66: Selbstverbesserung — ein Gespräch mit Prof. Anna Schaffner Episode 57: Konservativ UND Progressiv Episode 55: Strukturen der Welt Episode 50: Die Geburt der Gegenwart und die Entdeckung der Zukunft — ein Gespräch mit Prof. Achim Landwehr Episode 49: Wo denke ich? Reflexionen über den »undichten« Geist Episode 43: Deep Fakes: Wer bist du, und – was passiert da eigentlich? Episode 26: Was kann Politik (noch) leisten? Ein Gespräch mit Christoph Chorherr Fachliche Referenzen Alexander Schatten, Hexenmeister oder Zauberlehrling? Die Wissensgesellschaft in der Krise (2025) Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust I (1808) Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford University Press, Revised Edition (1979) Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decision, Basic Books (1996)

Hvem var Karl Popper, og er filosofien hans fortsatt relevant den dag idag? I denne episoden snakker Lars med Lars F. Svendsen, professor i filosofi ved Universitet i Bergen og Knut Olav Åmås, som er direktør i stiftelsen Fritt Ord. De har begge to latt seg inspirere av Karl Poppers syn på ytringsfrihet, viktigheten av kritikk og diskusjon, demokratiske normer, samt viktigheten av å uttrykke seg klart og saklig.  Knut Olav forteller om sitt møte med Karl Popper på tidlig 90-tall, om deres diskusjoner om rasjonalitet, verdenskrig, vitenskap og vestlig kulturimperialisme, før vi gir en kort innføring i Karl Poppers liv og verk, med hovedfokus på hans samfunnsfilosofi og boken The Open Society and its Enemies fra 1945. Vi kommer innom tema som toleranse og toleransens paradoks, bokens tre hovedfiender Platon, Hegel og Marx, Poppers skille mellom utopian og piecemeal social engineering, valget mellom frihet og trygghet, fryktens rolle i politikken, hvordan vi forholder oss til uenighet, viktigheten av klar og god formidling, konspirasjonsteorier, og mye annet.    Anbefalte verk av Karl Popper:  The Open Society and its Enemies The Poverty of Historicism Conjectures and Refutations The Myth of the Framework (inneholder mange greie innføringstekster) Kritisk tenking (utvalgte tekster i norsk oversettelse) Andre anbefalinger: Knut Olav Åmås, Verdien av uenighet, Kagge Forlag, 2007 Knut Olav Åmås, Dette er Norge, Dreyer Forlag 2018 (hvor man blant annet finner gjengitt hans intervju med Karl Popper fra 1992) Lars F. Svendsen, Dumhet, idioti og dumme idioter, Kagge forlag, 2024 Bjørn Stærk, Ingen tenker alene - En bok om å endre mening, Cappelen Damm, 2025   ---------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info. ----------------------------    Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss.  Både Lars og Pål skriver nå på hver sin blogg, med litt varierende regelmessighet. Du finner dem på disse nettsidene: https://paljabekk.com/ https://larssandaker.blogspot.com/   Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

Das Video zu dieser Episode findest du hier und abonniere gleich den YouTube Kanal, um keine neue Folge mehr zu verpassen.ZusammenfassungIn dieser spannenden Episode nimmt Julia Tulipan das populäre Konzept der Blue Zones unter die Lupe.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, joins The Winston Marshall Show for a sweeping conversation on free speech, censorship, and the dangers of state overreach.Lukianoff warns that Britain is sliding into authoritarianism with the Online Safety Act, the arrest of comedian Graham Linehan for “offensive tweets,” and thousands of citizens detained each year for speech crimes. He explains why Americans should be alarmed—not only because of cultural ties, but because UK and EU laws like the Digital Services Act now risk exporting censorship to the United States.They discuss the chilling effect of “non-crime hate incidents,” the hypocrisy of politicians who ignore Islamist extremism while cracking down on online speech, and why Big Tech is tripping over itself to appease Brussels bureaucrats. Lukianoff contrasts this with the Trump administration's free speech battles on university campuses, where anti-Semitism and harassment rationales are being used to justify speech codes.They also dive into the deeper history—Lenin, Marx, communism, and why the West never reckoned with the crimes of socialism—leaving us vulnerable to a new wave of ideological totalitarianism.All this—Britain's speech crisis, EU overreach, Trump and the universities, and the global struggle to preserve freedom of expression in the 21st century…-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To see more exclusive content and interviews consider subscribing to my substack here: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:Substack: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/X: https://twitter.com/mrwinmarshallInsta: https://www.instagram.com/winstonmarshallLinktree: https://linktr.ee/winstonmarshall----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapters 00:00 - Introduction & Guest Welcome 02:49 - Graham Linehan's Arrest and Free Speech in the UK 05:08 - Arrests for Offensive Speech in the UK 07:34 - Non-Crime Hate Incidents and Social Attitudes 10:03 - Malcolm Gladwell, Trans Issues, and Chilling Effects 14:03 - The Online Safety Act and Censorship of Americans 17:04 - Why Americans Care About British Free Speech 19:14 - The EU Digital Services Act and Global Censorship 22:20 - Protecting Children Online: Policy and Parental Controls 28:41 - Free Speech in America: Trump, Wokeism, and Ideology 32:31 - Communism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism: Historical Parallels 36:30 - Reckoning with Socialism and Communism 39:30 - Karl Popper, Tolerance, and Hate Speech Laws 42:30 - Trump Administration, Campus Speech Codes, and Harassment 45:32 - Political Correctness and Speech Codes in Higher Ed 51:02 - Harvard, Civil Rights Act, and Federal Oversight 55:56 - The Right Way to Reform University Funding 58:52 - Free Speech for Pro-Palestinian Students and Deportation 1:10:19 - Why Harvard Ranks Lowest for Free Speech 1:13:21 - FIRE's New Books and Campus Free Speech Rankings 1:13:56 - Closing Remarks Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Der Titel dieser Episode lautet »Desinformiere Dich!« – orientiert sich am Buch meines Gastes, Jakob Schirrmacher. Es freut mich ganz besonders, Jakob zum Gespräch begrüßen zu dürfen. Jakob Schirrmacher ist Referent für Medienbildung und Digitalisierung, Publizist und Gründer der NGO Free Speech Aid. Er beschäftigt sich mit Fragen rund um Meinungsfreiheit, Desinformation und den gesellschaftlichen Folgen digitaler Technologien. In seinen Essays – unter anderem für die WELT – analysiert er kritisch den Umgang von Politik und Medien mit Wahrheit und öffentlicher Debatte. Mit Free Speech Aid setzt er sich für mehr Meinungsfreiheit ein – und dafür, wie wir diese in Zeiten von Zensur- und Regulierungsdruck schützen können. In dieser Episode sprechen wir über Wahrheit und das vermeintliche Gegenteil, die Desinformation. Aber tatsächlich geht es, glaube ich, um die fundamentalere Frage, wie man mit Unsicherheit und mit unterschiedlichen Einschätzungen der Welt umgeht. In diesem Gespräch verhandeln wir hauptsächlich die gesellschaftlich/politischen Komponenten, aber die wissenschaftliche Dimension ist ebenso offensichtlich und wird von uns auch angesprochen. Wir beginnen mit der Frage, was eine moderne und offene Gesellschaft ausmacht, welche Rolle Individuum und Freiheit spielen und welche zahlreichen Angriffe auf die offene Gesellschaft und die Demokratie wir aktuell erleben. Was sollten wir als Bürger beachten und wie damit in der Zukunft umgehen? Ist offener Diskurs eine Bedingung für eine moderne Gesellschaft? Warum ist ein Fokus auf das Individuum und individuelle Rechte von Bedeutung? Was ist Wahrheit? Gibt es wesentliche Unterschiede zwischen Naturwissenschaft und Aspekten des individuellen gesellschaftlichen Lebens? »An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning…«, Max Planck Damit kommen wir zum Versuch der Definition verschiedener Begriffe und deren Etablierung in gesellschaftlichen Strukturen: »Wer entscheidet eigentlich, was Desinformation ist?« Was bedeutet der Begriff Desinformation eigentlich und wofür benötigen wir ihn? Ist er nützlich oder eher ein ideologischer Kampfbegriff – also selbst in einem gewissen Sinne Meta-Desinformation? Wie steht Desinformation in Bezug zum Begriff »Fake News«? »Elias Canetti in Masse und Macht diagnostiziert hatte: Wenn ein Begriff zu viele Deutungsvarianten hat, kann er politisch umso leichter instrumentalisiert werden.« Ist es also gar der Versuch, sprachlich Verwirrung zu stiften? Fallen viele Menschen gerade auf ein Machtspiel herein, das durch Umdefinition und immer neue Begriffsverwirrungen gespielt wird? »Es ist ein Herrschaftsinstrument – wir sehen, welche Maßnahmen ergriffen werden, um Desinformation einzudämmen.« Handelt es sich nur um einen wenig relevanten akademischen Diskurs, oder hat diese Frage konkrete Folgen für unsere Gesellschaft? »Der Umbau unserer Informationslandschaft ist schon lange im Gange« Wir diskutieren dies anhand konkreter Gesetzesvorhaben. Was ist der Digital Services Act und das vorausgehende Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz – beide im Grunde Made in Germany? »D.h. die Regulierung, die wir heute sehen, ist eigentlich ein deutsches Produkt.« Sollte Deutschland stolz darauf sein? Oder erleben wir eher einen schweren Angriff auf Freiheitsrechte, die Vorbildwirkung für zahlreiche totalitäre Staaten haben? Wurde mit dem Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz außerdem ein weiterer Begriff etabliert, oder gar erfunden, nämlich Hate Speech oder Hassrede im Deutschen? Welche schwerwiegenden (negativen) Folgen, wie Overblocking, haben diese Regularien für die freie Meinungsäußerung im Netz? Wird also das, was in demokratischen Gesellschaften eigentlich ein Tabu ist – Zensur – durch geschickte, aber perfide Regulierung und Anreizsysteme an Internetplattformen ausgelagert? Ist auch Hassrede ein Gummibegriff, der wenig nützt, aber viel Schaden anrichtet? Wie haben wir die stetige Krisenrhetorik zu bewerten, mit der vermeintlich harte Maßnahmen und immer neue Gesetze gerechtfertigt werden? »Die Erfahrung zeigt, dass Gesetze und Verordnungen nur selten wieder abgeschafft werden, sobald Machtstrukturen erst einmal gefestigt sind.« Wird mit Angst (durch tatsächliche oder vermeintliche Krisen ausgelöst) gearbeitet, um immer härtere Maßnahmen umzusetzen, die aber unsere Demokratie und die offene Gesellschaft untergraben und zersetzen? Nicht nur langfristige Effekte sind zu bedenken: Nur weil sich etwas gut anhört, bedeutet das noch lange nicht, dass es auch das Ziel erreicht, beziehungsweise mit angemessenen Nebenwirkungen erreicht. »Lofty goals have long distracted attention from actual consequences«, Tom Sowell Im Extremfall der Cancel Culture brauchen wir oftmals gar keine Gesetze mehr: »Wir schaffen ein soziales Klima, das auf bestimmte Fragen dermaßen emotional reagiert, dass […] man sofort in eine Ecke geschoben wird. Da wollen die wenigsten rein und dann sagt man besser nichts.« Immer mehr wird direkt oder indirekt »nach oben« delegiert, und führt zu immer stärkerer Machtansammlung. Davor hat Karl Popper, der Autor der »Offenen Gesellschaft«, aber schon vor Jahrzehnten eindringlich gewarnt: »Das Wichtigste ist es, all jenen großen Propheten zu misstrauen, die eine Patentlösung in der Tasche haben, und euch sagen, wenn ihr mir nur volle Gewalt gebt, dann werde ich euch in den Himmel führen. Die Antwort darauf ist: Wir geben niemandem volle Gewalt über uns, wir wollen, dass die Gewalt auf ein Minimum reduziert wird. Gewalt ist selbst ein Übel. Und wir können nicht ein Übel mit einem anderen austreiben.« […]  »Die Grundidee der Demokratie ist es, die Macht zu beschränken.« Warum schauen so viele Menschen tatenlos zu, wie unsere Demokratie substanziell beschädigt wird? »Wir haben es uns schon bequem gemacht in unserer Demokratie und sind mittlerweile in Strukturen angekommen, in denen es relativ unsexy geworden ist, gegen den Staat zu sein.« Besonders kritisch wird es, wenn man die Rolle betrachtet, die der Journalismus spielen sollte. Staatskritisch zu agieren ist das Kerngeschäft von politischen Journalisten. Stellen sich aber nicht weite Teile des Journalismus immer stärker als Bollwerk vor den Staat und verteidigen alle möglichen staatlichen Übergriffe? Was ist die Rolle, die der Staat in einer offenen Gesellschaft einnehmen sollte? Haben wir uns zum Nanny-Staat entwickelt, den wir bei allem und jedem um Erlaubnis fragen, statt Eigeninitiative zu entwickeln? Sind wir als Untertanen sozialisiert worden und haben vergessen, dass die Idee der offenen Gesellschaft war, dass wir frei sind und dass der Staat die Aufgabe hat, uns maximale individuelle Freiheit zu ermöglichen, die staatlichen Übergriffe auf ein absolutes Mindestmaß zu reduzieren? Haben wir den kritischen Umgang mit Herrschaftsstrukturen verlernt? Wie sieht das über Generationen aus? Woher kommt diese Hörigkeit? Was macht die ständige Krisenrhetorik mit uns, besonders auch mit jüngeren Menschen – selbst wenn es dafür oftmals wenig Grund gibt? Sind wir krisenmüde geworden? Wird das strategisch eingesetzt, um uns zu zermürben? Ist das Internet eine unfassbar mächtige Manipulationsmaschine? Oder ist das alles übertrieben? Was ist der Censorship-Industrial-Complex? Warum hat das mit klassischer Zensur weniger zu tun, war aber – gerade unter einer vermeintlich liberalen Regierung in den USA – ein etabliertes Mittel, um Information zu unterdrücken, die staatlichen Stellen oder bestimmten Eliten nicht in den Kram gepasst hat? Cambridge Analytica und Konsorten werden als Beispiel für die Macht der Wahlbeeinflussung diskutiert, oder handelt es sich eher um einen millionenschweren Marketing-Gag? Ist dieser Desinformationshype ein Geldsegen für soziale Medien? Wenn man angeblich über die Mechanismen der Internetdienste den Wahlausgang verändern kann, dann wird es wohl auch dazu reichen, mehr Cola zu verkaufen. Sind die Menschen nur Schafe, die schlicht dem nächsten Propagandisten folgen? Brauchen wir daher die Experten, die diese Schafe mit der richtigen Wahrheit auf den guten Weg führen? Wozu dann aber Demokratie – dann können wir das mühsame Getue auch gleich abschaffen und die Experten entscheiden lassen, oder? Was haben wir von NGOs zu halten, die in erheblichem Umfang von staatlichen Mitteln leben, aber vorgeben, im Interesse der »Zivilgesellschaft« zu handeln? Was hat es mit dem sogenannten post-faktischen Zeitalter auf sich? Welche Rolle spielen hier die verschiedenen Akteure? Von Regierungsorganisationen über Medien, Internetdienste, selbst ernannte Faktenchecker, sogenannte NGOs und viele andere mehr. »Man schafft es, den Eindruck zu erwecken, dass bestimmte Perspektiven aus der Mitte der Gesellschaft kommen, schlussendlich ist es aber genau das Gegenteil der Fall.« Wie sieht es mit der Lüge aus – soll diese verboten werden, oder hat der Mensch gar ein Recht zu lügen? Ist es manchmal vielleicht sogar Pflicht zu lügen? »In einer offenen Gesellschaft ist nicht die Lüge selbst das größte Risiko, sondern die Existenz einer Institution, die das ausschließliche Recht hat, Wahrheit zu definieren. […] Wer heute Lügen verbieten will, schafft morgen den Präzedenzfall für das Verbot unbequemer Wahrheiten« Zum Abschluss: Wie hat sich die Medienlandschaft über die letzten Jahrzehnten verändert – Frank Schirrmacher, Jakobs Vater, war ja Herausgeber der FAZ. Dazu ein Zitat von Hanns Joachim Friedrichs, das wie aus der Zeit gefallen wirkt: »Einen guten Journalisten erkennt man daran, dass er sich nicht gemein macht mit einer Sache, auch nicht mit einer guten Sache.« Wo gilt das heute noch? Es scheinen eher Haltung und Aktivismus, als die Suche nach der Wahrheit zu gelten – manchmal sogar verblüffend offen ausgesprochen, wie etwa von Katherine Maher, CEO von NPR, über Wikipedia: »The people who write these articles, they are not focused on the truth. They are focused on something else: what is the best that we can know right now […] Perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth, might not be the right place to start.« »I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done.« Findet die Reibung, der Versuch, Wahrheit zu finden, sich ernsthaft mit harten Themen auseinanderzusetzen, in den früheren Leitmedien oder gar im ÖRR noch statt? Oder erleben wir in Medien und Politik eine Konsenskultur statt harter thematischer Arbeit? Werden Medienorganisationen, die sich früher selbst ernst genommen haben und tatsächlich eine wesentliche Rolle in der Gesellschaft gespielt haben, immer mehr zu polarisierenden und nicht ernst zu nehmenden Randerscheinungen? Denken wir an das Etablieren von Fact-Checking bei der BBC? »Der Journalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, hat sich stark entkernt.« Ist die zunehmende »Demokratisierung« der Medienlandschaft – damit auch der Bedeutungsverlust klassischer Medien – eine positive oder negative Entwicklung? »Mein Vater [Frank Schirrmacher] hat mir früher immer gesagt: So lange wird es die FAZ nicht mehr geben.« Wo laufen wir als Gesellschaft hin, und was können wir selbst tun, um die Situation zu verbessern? Referenzen Weitere Episoden Episode 131: Wot Se Fack, Deutschland? Ein Gespräch mit Vince Ebert Episode 130: Populismus und (Ordo)liberalismus, ein Gespräch mit Nils Hesse Episode 125: Ist Fortschritt möglich? Ideen als Widergänger über Generationen Episode 117: Der humpelnde Staat, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Kletzer Episode 111: Macht. Ein Gespräch mit Christine Bauer-Jelinek Episode 94: Systemisches Denken und gesellschaftliche Verwundbarkeit, ein Gespräch mit Herbert Saurugg Episode 93: Covid. Die unerklärliche Stille nach dem Sturm. Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 88: Liberalismus und Freiheitsgrade, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Möllers Jakob Schirrmacher  Jakob Schirrmacher, Desinformiere dich! Eine Streitschrift Jakob Schirrmacher auf X Free Speech Aid NGO Frank Schirrmacher (FAZ) Fachliche Referenzen Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decision, Basic Books (1996) Karl Popper, die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde 1 & 2, Routledge (1945) Max Planck Zitat: The Philosophy of Physics Chapter III (p. 97) W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York, New York, USA. 1936 Whistleblower der Cambridge Analytica – Brittany Kaiser im Interview; SRF Sternstunde Philosophie (2020) Matt Taibi, Michael Shellenberger, Censorship-Industrial-Complex, US Congress EU-Umfragen, was denkt Europa Streisand Effekt (Reason, Unintended Consequences) Hanns Joachim Friedrichs Katherine Maher, CEO von NPR, What Wikipedia teaches us about balancing truth and beliefs, TED Talk (2021)

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.

In der neuen Speakeasy-Bar von „Wohlstand für Alle“ beantworten wir hochinteressante Fragen aus dem Publikum. Es geht um unsere Einschätzung zu René Girard und seiner mimetischen Theorie als Gegenkonzept zu Marx, um „Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde“ von Karl Popper und dessen Verhältnis zur Frankfurter Schule. Weiter fragen wir uns, ob die linke Kritik an der Polizei es sich nicht häufig zu einfach macht. Wir schätzen dies sehr unterschiedlich ein. Gefragt wurden wir auch, ob wir die Erwerbstätigkeit von Frauen nicht zu sehr glorifizieren und ob das überhaupt eine linke Position sein kann. Wir diskutieren außerdem über unsere Resignation angesichts der Klimakatastrophe und beantworten auch die Sommerfrage schlecht hin: Wie stehen wir eigentlich zum Konzept Urlaub? Ja, jeder hat da eine ganz andere Auffassung. Das und mehr gibt es in knapp 2 Stunden Speakeasy-Bar zu erleben. Wir freuen uns, wenn ihr uns via Steady, Apple oder Patreon bucht und den Podcast auf diese Weise unterstützt. Unsere Zusatzinhalte könnt ihr bei Apple Podcasts, Steady und Patreon hören. Vielen Dank! Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/wohlstand-f%C3%BCr-alle/id1476402723 Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgang Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about

On July 8th, in what can only be described as an act of reckless clarity, we published a white paper (grab it here—>) Unified Behavioral Model™ — Read more… listen now.Subscribe now“Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.” ― Karl PopperWhat makes UBM so unique—so different from prevalent behavioral models?First, let's clear up a common misconception:UBM—specifically the Behavior Echo-System (BES)—is a model of behavior, not a model of a person.People often see the graphic and assume it represents themselves, or a diagram of the human body. It doesn't.As Dr. Popper's statement above suggests, UBM simply articulates how behavior is influenced in the moment and shaped over time—within the system.Now, here's the B.I.G. claim:UBM is falsifiable.In science, that's the gold standard.(Period.)If a theory can't be tested or broken, it's just storytelling. Worse yet, Karl Popper would say it's non-science.What's his core claim? Science and non-science are divided by a single demarcation: Falsifiability.UBM asks—check that, insists—“Go for it… Please try to break me.”Apparently, no other behavior model—certainly not a unified one—has ever done that.Kind of interesting? Maybe just a bit?Worth mentioning, at least?Or dedicating, I don't know… twenty-plus years to uncovering?UBM/BES Comparison Table & Major Prevalent Models as provided by DeepSeek.According to Dr. Karl Popper—and as noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the twentieth century”—if a theory can't be tested (or broken), it's just storytelling. Worse, he'd call it “non-science.”Just to be clear: that's Dr. Popper, philosopher and trained psychologist, who introduced the idea of falsifiability (and gave us that delightful bit with the Black Swan).So yeah—if you can't at least attempt to break it, he says, it doesn't count.UBM is so confident in its falsifiability that it's offering a $1,000 reward to the first person to prove there's a missing fifth element—one that isn't reducible or emergent. (See below and bottom for official entry details.)So far: nearly 500 downloads and…Nada. Zip. Zilch. NOTHING.Even the world's top AIs—ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek—took their shots.They've all struck out. Attempts include: Time (environmental), Consciousness (emergent from the system), Willpower (embodied environment), Self-Organization (embodied environment—note the “self” in self-organization).The list goes on, and it's kind of funny. Google's Gemini, for example, offered a “someday” quantum property we don't even know of yet.Seriously.Just to be clear: if we don't know of it yet, and we can't test it—it's not a valid fifth element.DeepSeek's parting words? Also comical...“UBM 1. DS 0... Game respects game.”And, here's Gemini's best response after half dozen attempts…Gemini tries desperately to break the Unified Behavior Model and fails.The difficulty in falsification, as intended by the model's design, is a powerful indicator of its conceptual strength and it's potential to serve as a TRULY UNIFYING FRAMEWORK FOR BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE. ~Gemini 8/4/2025Some have argued, “Well, UBM is overly simplified.”Really?Then why hasn't anyone discovered it before—or more accurately, uncovered it and brought it to light?Surely, by now—150 years in—some behavioral scientist, somewhere in the world, would've presented this kind of systematic “oversimplification,” right?Let's go over that one more time:“Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.” ― Karl PopperThis is precisely Dr. Popper's point: science progresses by oversimplifying—systematically.Voila: UBM.

Nachdem in der vergangenen Folge der Hör-Kolumne »Freigeist« Karl Poppers (1902–1994) frühe Jahre und sein Wirken als wegweisender Wissenschaftsphilosoph im Mittelpunkt standen, widmet sich Helmut Fink nun dem späteren Wirken des Philosophen, insbesondere seinen einflussreichen Beiträgen zur politischen Philosophie. Im Zentrum dieser Folge steht Poppers 1945 erschienenes politische Hauptwerk »Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde«. Der Beitrag Freigeist (79) • Karl Popper – Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde • Hör-Kolumne von Helmut Fink erschien zuerst auf Kortizes-Podcast.

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Karl Popper flieht vor den Nazis und analysiert totalitären Terror. In "Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde" plädiert er 1945 für Demokratie - und gegen Heilslehren. Von Marfa Heimbach.

Simonetta Tassinari"Il bello tra le crepe"Manuale di riparazione della vita quotidianaFeltrinelli Editorewww.feltrinellieditore.itSe qualcosa non va per il verso giusto sembra destinato a sparire: un oggetto rotto, una relazione in crisi, un lavoro che non ci soddisfa. La soluzione immediata, infatti, ci sembra spesso quella di abbandonare, di buttare via, come se nulla potesse essere recuperato. Questa mentalità “usa e getta” non solo alimenta le discariche, ma logora il nostro modo di amare e di costruire rapporti, il nostro approccio alla vita. Quando le cose non corrispondono al nostro ideale, è naturale sentirsi sopraffatti e pensare che l'unica via d'uscita sia rivoluzionare tutto. Ma questi stravolgimenti portano a un miglioramento effettivo e duraturo? A volte il coraggio e l'efficacia non stanno nel radere al suolo l'esistente, ma nel fermarsi e cercare di capire se e come qualcosa possa essere riparato, come agire per farlo rifiorire. Sentimenti, legami e persino vecchi sogni possono ritrovare vigore con piccoli gesti e rinnovate attenzioni. Non si tratta di minimizzare le difficoltà, ma di affrontarle con un altro sguardo: viste da una diversa prospettiva, le crepe possono essere trasformate in punti di forza. I filosofi come Popper, che hanno scelto di riparare piuttosto che distruggere, ci ricordano che non tutto ciò che sembra imperfetto va scartato, che la rivoluzione a volte riesce meglio se si fa a piccoli passi. Prendersi cura dell'esistente può rivelarsi una soluzione migliore del buttare tutto all'aria nella convinzione illusoria che solo il nuovo possa corrispondere ai nostri desideri.Essere un “riparatore”, piuttosto che un “distruttore”, può offrirci fondamenta più stabili per una vita serena.Non arrendersi al primo ostacolo, negoziare, dare valore a ciò che c'è, ricomporre il mosaico aggiustando quello che non va, cercare margini di manovra.Karl Popper e i filosofi “riparatori” insegnano che i cambiamenti radicali non sono quasi mai una buona scelta. Alla tabula rasa, Simonetta Tassinari contrappone le strategie vincenti di una rivoluzione gentile.Simonetta Tassinari ha insegnato storia e filosofia nei licei e nel Laboratorio di didattica della filosofia dell'Università del Molise. Da anni coltiva la psicologia relazionale, la psicologia dell'età evolutiva, il counseling filosofico e divulga la filosofia tra bambini e ragazzi. Anima partecipati caffè filosofici e tiene conferenze in tutta Italia e all'estero. Collabora con la fondazione Quid+ e con Treccani Futura.Molto apprezzata dai lettori per la sua capacità di rendere la filosofia alla portata di tutti, è autrice per Feltrinelli del fortunatissimo Il filosofo che c'è in te (2019), cui ha fatto seguito Il filosofo influencer (2020), Contro-filosofia dell'amicizia (2022) e Il bello tra le crepe. Manuale di riparazione della vita quotidiana (2025). Per Gribaudo ha pubblicato diversi manuali, tra cui Instant filosofia (2021) e Il libro rosa della filosofia (2024). È stata candidata al premio Strega 2023 con il romanzo storico Donna Fortuna e i suoi amori (Corbaccio).IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarewww.ilpostodelleparole.itDiventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.

This podcast series started in January 2021. The first episode was on the Insurrection at the Capitol, instigated by Trump on the basis of his claim that the 2020 election was stolen. This episode was recorded just shy of a week away from Trump's second inauguration as President of the United States. Trump's signature policy proposals during his campaign had to do with deporting millions of illegal immigrants, closing the boarders, imposing tariffs on international trade, and returning to a kind of isolationism in foreign policy by removing US military support for Ukraine. Trump had gone on to implement many of those policies. These are the hallmarks of a closed society, something resembling a tribe, caring for nothing but itself, “on the alert for attack or defence” as Bergson said. This episode revisits an old idea of an Open society, coined by Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies. Jason Alexander McKenzie is a professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics and has written a (free access) book entitled The Open Society As An Enemy published by LSE Press, in which he defense  the open society at a time when it's under great duress. If you enjoyed the episode, please leave us a rating and a review on Apple Podcasts.This podcast is created in partnership with The Philosopher, the UK's longest running public philosophy journalm founded in 1923. Check out the latest issue of The Philosopher and its online events series: https://www.thephilosopher1923.org Artwork by Nick HallidayMusic by Rowan Mcilvride

On the rise of political violence. Listener call-in’s on Karl Popper’s teachings and the Seth Leibsohn Show’s bumper music. We're joined by John Dombroski, founder and president of Grand Canyon Planning Associates. Who exactly was running the country during the Biden Presidency?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Are you interested in how empowered children can change the future of cities? What do you think about the Taking Children Seriously approach? How can we bring up the next generation in the learning machine, also known as the city? Interview with Aaron Stupple, physician and author of The Sovereign Child, and Logan Chipkin, president of Conjecture Institute and junior author of The Sovereign Child. We talk about their vision for the future of cities, city as a learning machine, children's opportunities to network, protests, and many more. Aaron Stupple is a practicing physician and father of five in Western Massachusetts. He has been promoting critical rationalism and the work of Karl Popper and David Deutsch since 2019 in the form of online community building, a web magazine, and Rat Fest, the annual in-person conference in Philadelphia. He currently explores novel telehealth solutions and champions non-coercive parenting inspired by Popper and Deutsch's philosophy.Logan Chipkin, president of Conjecture Institute, is a Philadelphia-based writer and editor passionate about economics, physics, philosophy, and history. He creates educational content for a Bitcoin startup and develops innovative science funding methods. As Managing Editor of a liberty-focused nonprofit, he's published in Physics World, Gizmodo, Bitcoin Magazine, and more, and authored the fantasy novel Windfall. He collaborates with physicists, edits science works, hosts Rat Fest, and co-founded Conjecture Institute.The Sovereign Child, a book authored by Aaron Stupple and edited and junior authored by Logan Chipkin, advocates for the Taking Children Seriously philosophy, asserting that children, like adults, should have the freedom to make their own choices without parental limits, as their reasoning and emotions function similarly. Drawing from his experience as a father of five, Aaron critiques the harms of rule enforcement and explores surprising alternatives that prioritize respecting children's reasons as equally valid.Find out more about Aaron, Logan, and The Sovereign Child through these links:Aaron Stupple on LinkedIn@astupple as Aaron Stupple on XAaron Stupple on the Tim Ferriss ShowLogan Chipkin on LinkedInLogan Chipkin's website@ChipkinLogan as Logan Chipkin on XLogan Chipkin on YoutubeThe Sovereign Child - book by Aaron Stupple and Logan ChipkinTaking Children Seriously websiteThe Conjecture Institute websiteConnecting episodes you might be interested in:No.114 - Interview with Kelly Boucher about involving the small childrenNo.268 - Interview with Tiff Williams about children giving feedback on their environmentNo.294 - Interview with Erick A. Brimen about creating a new city with the minimum role of governmentNo.339R - The Sovereign ChildWhat was the most interesting part for you? What questions did arise for you? Let me know on Twitter ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WTF4Cities⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or on the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠wtf4cities.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ website where the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠shownotes⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ are also available.I hope this was an interesting episode for you and thanks for tuning in.Episode generated with ⁠⁠⁠Descript⁠⁠⁠ assistance (⁠⁠⁠affiliate link⁠⁠⁠).Music by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Lesfm ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠from ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Pixabay⁠

Are you interested in bringing up the next generation as sovereign individuals for better urban futures? Summary of the book titled The Sovereign Child: A Radically Noncoercive Approach to Parenting from 2025, by Aaron Stupple.This is a great preparation to our next interview with Aaron Stupple and Logan Chipkin in episode 340 talking about the challenges and opportunities for the next generation in creating the future of cities. Since we are investigating the future of cities, I thought it would be interesting to see how we can nurture the next generation of thinkers and city-influencers. This book presents a radically noncoercive parenting approach based on Karl Popper and David Deutsch's ideas to create win-win scenarios and foster the children's knowledge acquisition.Find the book through this link.Connecting episodes you might be interested in:No.114 - Interview with Kelly Boucher about involving the next generation in educationNo.268 - Interview with Tiff Williams about kids expressing their opinions about their environmentsNo.337R - Child-Friendly Cities and Communities: opportunities andchallengesNo.338 - Interview with Alison Watson about involving the next generation into the built environmentYou can find the transcript through ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠th⁠i⁠s link⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.What was the most interesting part for you? What questions did arise for you? Let me know on Twitter ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WTF4Cities⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or on the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠wtf4cities.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ website where the⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠showno⁠t⁠es⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠are also available.I hope this was an interesting episode for you and thanks for tuning in.Episode generated with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Descript⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ assistance (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠affiliate link⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).Music by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Lesfm ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠from ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Pixabay⁠

The Open Society as an Enemy: A critique of how free societies turned against themselves by J. McKenzie Alexander Nearly 80 years ago, Karl Popper gave a spirited philosophical defence of the Open Society in his two-volume work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. In this book, J. McKenzie Alexander argues that a new defence is urgently needed because, in the decades since the end of the Cold War, many of the values of the Open Society have come under threat once again. Populist agendas on both the left and right threaten to undermine fundamental principles that underpin liberal democracies, so that what were previously seen as virtues of the Open Society are now, by many people, seen as vices, dangers, or threats. The Open Society as an Enemy: A Critique of how Free Societies Turned Against Themselves interrogates four interconnected aspects of the Open Society: cosmopolitanism, transparency, the free exchange of ideas, and communitarianism. Each of these is analysed in depth, drawing out the implications for contemporary social questions such as the free movement of people, the erosion of privacy, no-platforming and the increased political and social polarisation that is fuelled by social media. In re-examining the consequences for all of us of these attacks on free societies, Alexander calls for resistance to the forces of reaction. But he also calls for the concept of the Open Society to be rehabilitated and advanced. In doing this, he argues, there is an opportunity to re-think the kind of society we want to create, and to ensure it is achievable and sustainable. This forensic defence of the core principles of the Open Society is an essential read for anyone wishing to understand some of the powerful social currents that have engulfed public debates in recent years, and what to do about them. The book is publicly available via the following link The Open Society as an Enemy | LSE Press J. McKenzie Alexander is a Professor in Philosophy at the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method in the London School of Economics. From 2012 to 2018, Professor Alexander served as one of the Academic Governors on the Council of the LSE, as well as a member of the Court of Governors. From 2018–2021, he served as the Head of Department. Before joining the department, Alexander was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy, University of California – San Diego (between 2000 and 2001). Although J. McKenzie Alexander's original field of research concerned evolutionary game theory as applied to the evolution of morality and social norms, more recently he has worked on problems in decision theory, more broadly construed, including topics in formal epistemology. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How a failed biblical uprising reveals the power of productive disagreement. Mark Friedman, author of "Come Now, Let Us Reason Together," joins Madlik to explore Judaism's embrace of disagreement. We dive into the Korach story, contrasting it with the debates of Hillel and Shammai to illustrate how Judaism values constructive conflict. Friedman connects ancient Jewish wisdom to modern philosophical concepts, drawing parallels between Talmudic discourse and Karl Popper's theories on truth-seeking. The episode challenges the notion of absolute truth in religious interpretation, advocating for pluralism within tradition. Key Takeaways Judaism celebrates constructive disagreement as a path to progress The Korach story teaches the importance of sincere, well-intentioned debate Modern philosophical concepts can illuminate traditional Jewish approaches to truth and interpretation= Timestamps [00:00] – Introduction of the theme: Judaism thrives on disagreement, not dogma. [01:44] – Mark Friedman shares his background and journey from secular Judaism to deep Torah engagement. [05:00] – Introduction to Pirkei Avot and the concept of a “dispute for the sake of Heaven.” [07:36] – Why Korach's argument failed: selfish motives vs. truth-seeking intent. [09:34] – Korach's logic vs. divine command: the flaw in rationalizing sacred law. [12:23] – Misapplied questions and the importance of framing debate with sincerity. [16:00] – Comparing the Tower of Babel to Korach: when unity becomes tyranny. [20:00] – Applying Karl Popper's philosophy of falsifiability to Talmudic pluralism. [27:00] – Why Hillel's flexibility makes his rulings endure more than Shammai's rigidity. [31:00] – Wrapping up with pluralism, tradition, and valuing minority opinions in Jewish thought. Links & Learnings Sign up for free and get more from our weekly newsletter https://madlik.com/ Come Now, Let Us Reason Together: Uncovering the Torah's Liberal Values Paperback – December 30, 2024 by Mark D. Friedman Safaria Source Sheet: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/658585 Transcript on episode web page: https://madlik.com/2025/06/26/pluralism-in-judaism/

For 80 years, Western civilization has operated under a quiet agreement that has shaped our politics, our foreign policy, our economics, and even our moral worldview. So what is the “Postwar Consensus”, why is it starting to unravel, and what could possibly come next?-----⭐ SPONSOR: Good Ranchers Serve only the best for your 4th of July celebrations! Over 85% of grass-fed beef sold in U.S. stores is imported, but Good Ranchers offers 100% American-sourced meat, supporting local farms. We eat Good Ranchers every single day and we know you'll love it.

The Open Society as an Enemy: A critique of how free societies turned against themselves by J. McKenzie Alexander Nearly 80 years ago, Karl Popper gave a spirited philosophical defence of the Open Society in his two-volume work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. In this book, J. McKenzie Alexander argues that a new defence is urgently needed because, in the decades since the end of the Cold War, many of the values of the Open Society have come under threat once again. Populist agendas on both the left and right threaten to undermine fundamental principles that underpin liberal democracies, so that what were previously seen as virtues of the Open Society are now, by many people, seen as vices, dangers, or threats. The Open Society as an Enemy: A Critique of how Free Societies Turned Against Themselves interrogates four interconnected aspects of the Open Society: cosmopolitanism, transparency, the free exchange of ideas, and communitarianism. Each of these is analysed in depth, drawing out the implications for contemporary social questions such as the free movement of people, the erosion of privacy, no-platforming and the increased political and social polarisation that is fuelled by social media. In re-examining the consequences for all of us of these attacks on free societies, Alexander calls for resistance to the forces of reaction. But he also calls for the concept of the Open Society to be rehabilitated and advanced. In doing this, he argues, there is an opportunity to re-think the kind of society we want to create, and to ensure it is achievable and sustainable. This forensic defence of the core principles of the Open Society is an essential read for anyone wishing to understand some of the powerful social currents that have engulfed public debates in recent years, and what to do about them. The book is publicly available via the following link The Open Society as an Enemy | LSE Press J. McKenzie Alexander is a Professor in Philosophy at the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method in the London School of Economics. From 2012 to 2018, Professor Alexander served as one of the Academic Governors on the Council of the LSE, as well as a member of the Court of Governors. From 2018–2021, he served as the Head of Department. Before joining the department, Alexander was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy, University of California – San Diego (between 2000 and 2001). Although J. McKenzie Alexander's original field of research concerned evolutionary game theory as applied to the evolution of morality and social norms, more recently he has worked on problems in decision theory, more broadly construed, including topics in formal epistemology. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

The Open Society as an Enemy: A critique of how free societies turned against themselves by J. McKenzie Alexander Nearly 80 years ago, Karl Popper gave a spirited philosophical defence of the Open Society in his two-volume work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. In this book, J. McKenzie Alexander argues that a new defence is urgently needed because, in the decades since the end of the Cold War, many of the values of the Open Society have come under threat once again. Populist agendas on both the left and right threaten to undermine fundamental principles that underpin liberal democracies, so that what were previously seen as virtues of the Open Society are now, by many people, seen as vices, dangers, or threats. The Open Society as an Enemy: A Critique of how Free Societies Turned Against Themselves interrogates four interconnected aspects of the Open Society: cosmopolitanism, transparency, the free exchange of ideas, and communitarianism. Each of these is analysed in depth, drawing out the implications for contemporary social questions such as the free movement of people, the erosion of privacy, no-platforming and the increased political and social polarisation that is fuelled by social media. In re-examining the consequences for all of us of these attacks on free societies, Alexander calls for resistance to the forces of reaction. But he also calls for the concept of the Open Society to be rehabilitated and advanced. In doing this, he argues, there is an opportunity to re-think the kind of society we want to create, and to ensure it is achievable and sustainable. This forensic defence of the core principles of the Open Society is an essential read for anyone wishing to understand some of the powerful social currents that have engulfed public debates in recent years, and what to do about them. The book is publicly available via the following link The Open Society as an Enemy | LSE Press J. McKenzie Alexander is a Professor in Philosophy at the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method in the London School of Economics. From 2012 to 2018, Professor Alexander served as one of the Academic Governors on the Council of the LSE, as well as a member of the Court of Governors. From 2018–2021, he served as the Head of Department. Before joining the department, Alexander was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy, University of California – San Diego (between 2000 and 2001). Although J. McKenzie Alexander's original field of research concerned evolutionary game theory as applied to the evolution of morality and social norms, more recently he has worked on problems in decision theory, more broadly construed, including topics in formal epistemology. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The Open Society as an Enemy: A critique of how free societies turned against themselves by J. McKenzie Alexander Nearly 80 years ago, Karl Popper gave a spirited philosophical defence of the Open Society in his two-volume work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. In this book, J. McKenzie Alexander argues that a new defence is urgently needed because, in the decades since the end of the Cold War, many of the values of the Open Society have come under threat once again. Populist agendas on both the left and right threaten to undermine fundamental principles that underpin liberal democracies, so that what were previously seen as virtues of the Open Society are now, by many people, seen as vices, dangers, or threats. The Open Society as an Enemy: A Critique of how Free Societies Turned Against Themselves interrogates four interconnected aspects of the Open Society: cosmopolitanism, transparency, the free exchange of ideas, and communitarianism. Each of these is analysed in depth, drawing out the implications for contemporary social questions such as the free movement of people, the erosion of privacy, no-platforming and the increased political and social polarisation that is fuelled by social media. In re-examining the consequences for all of us of these attacks on free societies, Alexander calls for resistance to the forces of reaction. But he also calls for the concept of the Open Society to be rehabilitated and advanced. In doing this, he argues, there is an opportunity to re-think the kind of society we want to create, and to ensure it is achievable and sustainable. This forensic defence of the core principles of the Open Society is an essential read for anyone wishing to understand some of the powerful social currents that have engulfed public debates in recent years, and what to do about them. The book is publicly available via the following link The Open Society as an Enemy | LSE Press J. McKenzie Alexander is a Professor in Philosophy at the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method in the London School of Economics. From 2012 to 2018, Professor Alexander served as one of the Academic Governors on the Council of the LSE, as well as a member of the Court of Governors. From 2018–2021, he served as the Head of Department. Before joining the department, Alexander was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy, University of California – San Diego (between 2000 and 2001). Although J. McKenzie Alexander's original field of research concerned evolutionary game theory as applied to the evolution of morality and social norms, more recently he has worked on problems in decision theory, more broadly construed, including topics in formal epistemology. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

In dieser ersten von zwei Folgen seiner Hör-Kolumne widmet sich Helmut Fink dem Leben und Denken Karl Poppers (1902 – 1994), eines der einflussreichsten Wissenschaftstheoretiker des 20. Jahrhunderts. Im Mittelpunkt steht Poppers Wissenschaftstheorie, mit der er den kritischen Rationalismus begründete. Statt auf Verifikation wie der Wiener Kreis forderte Popper Falsifizierbarkeit als Abgrenzungskriterium von Aussagen in Der Beitrag Freigeist (78) • Karl Popper – Logik der Forschung • Hör-Kolumne von Helmut Fink erschien zuerst auf Kortizes-Podcast.

In this episode, Megan and Frank investigate the Enneagram. Is the Enneagram a legitimate science of personality? What even is personality? And how much of our lives does personality determine? Join them as they examine the classic book, "Discovering Your Personality Type: The Essential Introduction to the Enneagram" by Don Richard Riso & Russ Hudson. Other thinkers discussed include: Aristotle, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and John Doris.-----------------------Hosts' Websites:Megan J Fritts (google.com)Frank J. Cabrera (google.com)Email: philosophyonthefringes@gmail.com-----------------------Bibliography:Don Richard Riso & Russ Hudson - Discovering Your Personality TypeEmpirical Approaches to Moral Character (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Pseudoscience and the Demarcation Problem | Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyBeyond Good and Evil by Friedrich NietzscheSituationism, Moral Improvement, and Moral Responsibility | The Oxford Handbook of Moral PsychologyVirtue Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy-----------------------Cover Artwork by Logan Fritts-------------------------Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/neon-signsLicense code: O6ZNDALO7DL2LNHE

Theologian and First Things editor R.R. Reno joins The Winston Marshall Show for a sweeping intellectual conversation on nationalism, identity, and the postwar consensus that still haunts the West.Reno argues that the true crisis isn't a conspiracy—but a consensus forged after WWII: a fear of nationalism, religion, and moral conviction, shaped by the horrors of Auschwitz and Hiroshima. He calls this the age of “weak gods”—a culture hollowed out by relativism, therapeutic liberalism, and meaning without truth.From Karl Popper and the Open Society to the cult of DEI and the rise of populist rebellion, Reno makes the case that Western civilization is suffering from a kind of civilizational PTSD—and that only the return of “strong gods” like loyalty, love, and faith can offer redemption.All this—postwar ideology, the collapse of civic trust, mass migration, shared mythos, and the spiritual malaise of modern life…-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To see more exclusive content and interviews consider subscribing to my substack here: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:Substack: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/X: https://twitter.com/mrwinmarshallInsta: https://www.instagram.com/winstonmarshallLinktree: https://linktr.ee/winstonmarshall----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapters 00:00 Introduction 1:49 Populism and Its Global Phenomenon 4:32 The Return of Strong Gods 21:58 Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies" 28:29 The Impact of Post-War Consensus on Education 47:33 The Return of Strong Gods and the Role of Love 1:09:32 The Role of Religion and Spirituality in Society 1:14:37 The Impact of Popper's Ideas on Conservatism 1:18:31 Loyalty and Fanaticism in Sports and Society 1:21:15 Nationalism vs. Patriotism 1:23:15 Censorship and the Never Again Mentality1:27:54 The Death Throes of the Open Society Consensus 1:33:41 The Role of Strong Gods in Non-Western Countries 1:37:32 The Paradox of Western Ideologies 1:38:21 Conclusion and Final Thoughts Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tachtig jaar geleden formuleerde filosoof Karl Popper de tolerantieparadox: een open samenleving kan intolerantie niet tolereren. Progressief-liberalen én (radicaal)rechtse politici beroepen zich vandaag de dag op Popper, maar trekken geheel verschillende conclusies over de betekenis van zijn woorden. Hoe komen we uit de paradox? In gesprek met kamerlid Groenlinks-PvdA Lisa Westerveld, wetenschappelijk directeur TeldersStichting Patrick van Schie, journalist Filosofie Magazine Alexandra van Ditmars en journalist De Groene Amsterdammer Coen van de Ven.‘Onbeperkte tolerantie leidt uiteindelijk tot het verdwijnen van tolerantie. Als we niet bereid zijn om een tolerante samenleving te verdedigen tegen de aanval van intoleranten, dan zullen de toleranten vernietigd worden – en tolerantie met hen', zo schreef de Oostenrijks-Britse filosoof Karl Popper in de nasleep van de Tweede Wereldoorlog in De open samenleving en haar vijanden (1945).Tachtig jaar later, met radicaalrechts in veel westerse landen aan het roer, is het denken van Popper actueler dan ooit. Karl Popper is een icoon van het liberalisme. Maar ook Geert Wilders zegt door zijn denken geïnspireerd te zijn. In dit programma onderzoeken we Poppers tolerantieparadox: tegen welk soort onverdraagzaamheid moeten we ons weren en wanneer dient (veronderstelde) intolerantie slechts als excuus voor eigen onverdraagzaamheid? Oftewel: hoe geven we anno 2025 de open samenleving vorm?Programmamaker: Veronica BaasModerator: Kees FoekemaIn samenwerking met Filosofie Magazine.Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

Wat gebeurt er met je innerlijke vrede als je dagelijks moet opboksen tegen systemen die niet meebewegen? In deze nieuwe Peace Talks duiken we in de wereld van een politica.Arjan spreekt met Lisa Westerveld: Tweede Kamerlid, filosoof, metalfan én zoeker. Ze vertelt hoe ze overeind blijft in een wereld vol druk, strijd en onmacht. Waarom ze met een voetbaltas de Kamer verlaat. Hoe ze rust vindt bij Karl Popper. En hoe haar christelijke opvoeding de basis legde voor haar idealen.Een open en eerlijk gesprek over gewetensvragen, verantwoordelijkheid en hoop houden, ook als je het even niet meer weet. Let op: In deze aflevering wordt gesproken over zelfmoord. Heb je hulp nodig of maak je je zorgen om iemand? Neem dan contact op met 113 Zelfmoordpreventie via www.113.nl of bel gratis 0800-0113. Je bent niet alleen.Over de podcast:❓ Stuur hier jouw vraag in!Onze programma's:✨ Miracle Roadmap (we starten 2 keer per jaar: in september en februari)

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

Brett Hall offers a compelling exploration of knowledge, progress, and human potential through the lens of David Deutsch and Karl Popper's philosophy. He articulates how the tradition of criticism—the willingness to question everything—propelled the Enlightenment and remains essential for human advancement. Hall presents a refreshingly optimistic worldview where progress comes through solving problems, knowledge is infinite, and humans are unique in their capacity to create explanations of reality. Throughout the conversation, he challenges mainstream pessimism, anti-human sentiment, and educational practices that undermine critical thinking, while making a passionate case for individual liberty, free speech, and the centrality of human creativity in understanding our place in the universe.   https://www.bretthall.org/ Subscribe to Here for the Truth Fridays. Take the Real AF Test Now! Discover Your Truth Seeker Archetype. Join our membership Friends of the Truth. Watch all our episodes. Connect with us on Telegram. Access all our links.   Hosted by Joel Rafidi & Yerasimos Intro and outro music: Illusion by Joel Rafidi

What if parenting held the keys to civilization's long-term flourishing?In this deeply personal and philosophically rich episode of the Existential Hope podcast, we sit down with Dr. Aaron Stupple – physician, thinker, and author of The Sovereign Child. Drawing from the rationalist traditions of David Deutsch and Karl Popper, and grounded in the parenting philosophy of "Taking Children Seriously," Aaron explores what it means to treat children as full moral agents from birth.From screen time and sugar to sleep and sovereignty, Aaron shares how applying rigorous epistemology to parenting transformed his relationship with his children — and how it might transform the future of civilization itself.Key TopicsApplying Popperian epistemology to parentingWhy children are not "pre-persons" but full moral agentsMoving beyond control vs. permissivenessReal-life examples: screens, food, bedtime, and educationParenting as civilizational infrastructure for a better futureFull transcript, list of resources, and art piece: https://www.existentialhope.com/podcastsExistential Hope was created to collect positive and possible scenarios for the future so that we can have more people commit to creating a brighter future, and to begin mapping out the main developments and challenges that need to be navigated to reach it. Existential Hope is a Foresight Institute project.Hosted by Allison Duettmann and Beatrice ErkersFollow Us: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Existential Hope InstagramExplore every word spoken on this podcast through Fathom.fm. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Thank you for watching! Grab your copy of The Time is Now and start your journey toward living a more intentional and fulfilling life -⁠⁠ https://a.co/d/aDYCQ9oBecome a member of the channel & get access to exclusive perks (including town halls with guests from the show):https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl67XqJVdVtBqiCWahS776g/joinDownload this episode's transcript - https://throughconversations.kit.com/ad165371fdIn this conversation, Aaron Stupple discusses the themes of his book, 'The Sovereign Child,' which challenges conventional parenting norms. The discussion explores the importance of agency, autonomy, and trust in parenting, emphasizing the need for children to learn through experience rather than strict rules.Aaron Stupple is a practicing physician, former middle school and high school science teacher, and co-founder of the nonprofit Conjecture Institute. He has been promoting critical rationalism and the work of Karl Popper and David Deutsch since 2018, most prominently through Rat Fest, an annual in-person conference. Aaron lives in Western Massachusetts with his wife and five children.Order the sovereign child - https://www.thesovereignchild.comChapters00:00 Introduction to The Sovereign Child02:04 Understanding Agency and Food Choices05:57 Philosophy of Parenting and Personal Fears10:06 Intervention vs. Autonomy in Parenting14:12 Trust and Rules in Parenting17:48 Learning from Children and Discovery23:59 Passions and Resilience in Life31:20 The Role of Passion in Resilience32:45 Supporting Children's Interests34:54 Understanding Screen Time and Engagement38:38 The Misconception of Screens and Learning43:30 Dopamine: Understanding Pleasure and Guilt49:18 The Flaws of Goal-Oriented Mindsets56:53 Embracing Incremental Change and Enjoyment01:01:20 Exploring Consciousness in Infants01:09:03 The Nature of Free Will in Modern Society01:24:49 Raising Sovereign Individuals: A New Parenting Philosophy// Connect With Me //ORDER MY BOOK, THE TIME IS NOW: A GUIDE TO HONOR YOUR TIME ON EARTH: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.timeisnowbook.comWebsite: ⁠⁠⁠https://throughconversations.com⁠⁠Substack - https://throughconversations.substack.comYouTube community -https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl67XqJVdVtBqiCWahS776g/join// Social //X: ⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/ThruConvPodcast⁠⁠Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/thruconvpodcast/?hl=en⁠⁠⁠YouTube: ⁠⁠https:⁠//www.youtube.com/channel/UCl67XqJVdVtBqiCWahS776g

We explore how censorship is impacting institutions — from universities to law firms to the Maine House of Representatives. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 01:40 Federal government cuts Columbia's funding 16:57 Updates on the Mahmoud Khalil case 27:01 Ed Martin's Georgetown letter 34:59 Trump targeting law firms 55:01 Maine House censure of Rep. Laurel Libby 01:03:37 Outro Guests: - Will Creeley, FIRE's legal director - Conor Fitzpatrick, FIRE's supervising senior attorney - Lindsie Rank, FIRE's director of campus rights advocacy  Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Show notes: - “DOJ, HHS, ED, and GSA announce initial cancelation of grants and contracts to Columbia University worth $400 million” U.S. Department of Justice (2025) - HHS, ED, and GSA follow up letter to Columbia. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Government Services Administration (2025) - “Columbia yields to Trump in battle over federal funding” The Wall Street Journal (2025) - “Advancing our work to combat discrimination, harassment, and antisemitism at Columbia” Columbia University (2025)   - “Columbia caves to feds — and sets a dangerous precedent” FIRE (2025) - “ED, HHS, and GSA Respond to Columbia University's Actions to Comply with Joint Task Force Pre-Conditions” U.S. Department of Education (2025) - “FIRE demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud Khalil” FIRE (2025) - “Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Khalil v. Joyce” FIRE (2025) - “​​We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio via X (2025) - “‘ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign Pro-Hamas student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come.' President Donald J. Trump” The White House via X (2025) - “WATCH: White House downplays stock market declines as ‘a snapshot'” PBS NewsHour (2025) - “Secretary Rubio's remarks to the press” U.S. Department of State (2025) - “Mahmoud Khalil. Notice to appear.” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025) - “Alien and Sedition Acts” National Archives (1798) - Ed Martin's letter to Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor. (2025) - Dean Treanor's response to Ed Martin. (2025) - “Trump, Perkins Coie and John Adams” The Wall Street Journal (2025) - “Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts” The White House (2025) - “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” The White House (2025) - “Addressing risks from Paul Weiss” The White House (2025) - “Lawyers who anger the Feds face new penalties by decree” The CATO Institute (2025) - “Today, President Donald J. Trump agreed to withdraw his March 14, 2025 Executive Order regarding the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP law firm (‘Paul, Weiss'), which has entered into the following agreement with the President…” President Trump via TruthSocial (2025) - “Head of Paul, Weiss says firm would not have survived without deal with Trump” The New York Times (2025) - “House resolution relating to the censure of Representative Laurel D. Libby of Auburn by the Maine House of Representatives” Maine House of Representatives (2025) - “Maine's censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an attack on free speech” FIRE (2025) - “Maine State Rep. Laurel Libby disagreed with biological males competing in women's sports, and now, the Maine State House is censuring her.” Sen. Kennedy via X (2025) - “The open society and its enemies” Karl Popper (1945) - “Cyber rights: Defending free speech in the digital age” Mike Godwin (1995)

https://youtu.be/ad5KEuKz1a8 Podcast audio: How does science work, and how does it differ from religion or pseudo-science? According to Karl Popper's “falsificationism,” science, unlike religion and pseudo-science, doesn't claim certainty; it aims only to disprove its hypotheses, and this is the source of its rationality. Popper proposed his theory as an alternative to the view that science distinguishes itself by proving its conclusions inductively. In this lecture, Mike Mazza discuss the reasons behind Popper's anti-inductivism and falsificationism and how they undercut the rationality of science. Recorded live on June 16 in Anaheim, CA as part of OCON 2024.

On this episode of Crazy Wisdom, host Stewart Alsop speaks with Andrew Altschuler, a researcher, educator, and navigator at Tana, Inc., who also founded Tana Stack. Their conversation explores knowledge systems, complexity, and AI, touching on topics like network effects in social media, information warfare, mimetic armor, psychedelics, and the evolution of knowledge management. They also discuss the intersection of cognition, ontologies, and AI's role in redefining how we structure and retrieve information. For more on Andrew's work, check out his course and resources at altshuler.io and his YouTube channel.Check out this GPT we trained on the conversation!Timestamps00:00 Introduction and Guest Background00:33 The Demise of AirChat00:50 Network Effects and Social Media Challenges03:05 The Rise of Digital Warlords03:50 Quora's Golden Age and Information Warfare08:01 Building Limbic Armor16:49 Knowledge Management and Cognitive Armor18:43 Defining Knowledge: Secular vs. Ultimate25:46 The Illusion of Insight31:16 The Illusion of Insight32:06 Philosophers of Science: Popper and Kuhn32:35 Scientific Assumptions and Celestial Bodies34:30 Debate on Non-Scientific Knowledge36:47 Psychedelics and Cultural Context44:45 Knowledge Management: First Brain vs. Second Brain46:05 The Evolution of Knowledge Management54:22 AI and the Future of Knowledge Management58:29 Tana: The Next Step in Knowledge Management59:20 Conclusion and Course InformationKey InsightsNetwork Effects Shape Online Communities – The conversation highlighted how platforms like Twitter, AirChat, and Quora demonstrate the power of network effects, where a critical mass of users is necessary for a platform to thrive. Without enough engaged participants, even well-designed social networks struggle to sustain themselves, and individuals migrate to spaces where meaningful conversations persist. This explains why Twitter remains dominant despite competition and why smaller, curated communities can be more rewarding but difficult to scale.Information Warfare and the Need for Cognitive Armor – In today's digital landscape, engagement-driven algorithms create an arena of information warfare, where narratives are designed to hijack emotions and shape public perception. The only real defense is developing cognitive armor—critical thinking skills, pattern recognition, and the ability to deconstruct media. By analyzing how information is presented, from video editing techniques to linguistic framing, individuals can resist manipulation and maintain autonomy over their perspectives.The Role of Ontologies in AI and Knowledge Management – Traditional knowledge management has long been overlooked as dull and bureaucratic, but AI is transforming the field into something dynamic and powerful. Systems like Tana and Palantir use ontologies—structured representations of concepts and their relationships—to enhance information retrieval and reasoning. AI models perform better when given structured data, making ontologies a crucial component of next-generation AI-assisted thinking.The Danger of Illusions of Insight – Drawing from ideas by Balaji Srinivasan, the episode distinguished between genuine insight and the illusion of insight. While psychedelics, spiritual experiences, and intense emotional states can feel revelatory, they do not always produce knowledge that can be tested, shared, or used constructively. The ability to distinguish between profound realizations and self-deceptive experiences is critical for anyone navigating personal and intellectual growth.AI as an Extension of Human Cognition, Not a Second Brain – While popular frameworks like "second brain" suggest that digital tools can serve as externalized minds, the episode argued that AI and note-taking systems function more as extended cognition rather than true thinking machines. AI can assist with organizing and retrieving knowledge, but it does not replace human reasoning or creativity. Properly integrating AI into workflows requires understanding its strengths and limitations.The Relationship Between Personal and Collective Knowledge Management – Effective knowledge management is not just an individual challenge but also a collective one. While personal knowledge systems (like note-taking and research practices) help individuals retain and process information, organizations struggle with preserving and sharing institutional knowledge at scale. Companies like Tesla exemplify how knowledge isn't just stored in documents but embodied in skilled individuals who can rebuild complex systems from scratch.The Increasing Value of First Principles Thinking – Whether in AI development, philosophy, or practical decision-making, the discussion emphasized the importance of grounding ideas in first principles. Great thinkers and innovators, from AI researchers like Demis Hassabis to physicists like David Deutsch, excel because they focus on fundamental truths rather than assumptions. As AI and digital tools reshape how we interact with knowledge, the ability to think critically and question foundational concepts will become even more essential.

The first part of my discussion of the differing visions of science and how scientific knowledge "grows" (or not) according to Thomas Kuhn vs Karl Popper as outlined in this chapter of "The Beginning of Infinity". Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" explains the concept of a "paradigm" and "paradigm shifts" comparing "revolutionary" and "normal" periods of science. Kuhn's work remains the most cited in the social sciences and so far more people - especially in academia - are familiar with his work that Popper's. What explains this? What does Kuhn have to say? And what does a "critical rationalist" perspective on the growth of knowledge have to say in response to Kuhn?

The second in the series on "The Myth of the Framework" paper. Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction with some reflections on Joe Rogan and Gad Saad 05:14 Section IVa reading - on “Confrontations” 06:32 Section IVa reflection 09:48 Section IVb reading 10:17 Section IVb reflection 12:14 Section IVc reading - tolerance and respect 13:26 Section IV c reflection on Herodotus and tolerance 15:08 Section IV d reading. When should a discussion reach agreement? 16:39 Section IV d reflection. Quibbling with Popper? True Theories or Best Explanations? 28:54 Section IV e reading Goodwill 30:00 Section IV e Reflection on Goodwill, courtesy and politeness. And an anecdote about “professors”. 36:54 Interlude: Popper's Introduction to “The Myth of the Framework” - expertise and authority 40:00 Section V a Reading Clash of civilisations 40:56 Section V a Reflection (including remarks on Piers Morgan and Tucker Carlson) 44:00 Section V b “Culture Clash” the impact on Greek Philosophy and Rationality - Reading and reflection interleaved. 57:15 Section VI a Reading - How we make the world understandable to ourselves 57:55 Section VI a Reflection on the task of “reason”. 59:23 Section VI b Reading: The invention of explanations and the two components of rationality. 1:00:13 Secton VI b Reflection on rationality 1:03:40 Section VI c Popper's conjecture on the origins of the critical method I 1:05:08 Section VI c Reflection on Hesiod's Theogony. 1:07:05 Section VI d Reading Popper's conjecture part II 1:08:08 Reflection on Popper's Conjecture 1:09:04 Section VI e Reading on Anixmander's theory 1:10:12 Section VI e Reflection on Anixmander's theory 1:11:25 Section VI f Conjecturing about conjectures and “The Critical Tradition I” 1:12:52 Section VI f Reflections on “The Critical Tradition” 1:13:16 Section VI g The Critical Tradition II 1:14:33 Section VI g Reflections on “The Critical Tradition II” and “schools” of philosophy. 1:15:30 Section VI h The Ionian School 1:16:36 Section VI h Reflections on the modern critical method and thoughts about Aristarchus and Parallax measurements 1:20:50 Section VI I Conclusion

It had to happen eventually: this week The Studies Show is all about philosophy. As we look at science in general, how do we decide what those studies are actually showing? Tom and Stuart take a look at the Big Two of philosophy of science: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, with their respective theories of falsificationism and paradigm shifts. Both are theories that almost everyone interested in science has heard of—but both make far more extreme claims than you might think.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to go online for fact-rich, data-dense articles on science and technology, and how they've made the world a better place—or how they might do so in the future. To find all their essays, all for free, go to worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Tom's new book, Everything is Predictable: How Bayes' Remarkable Theorem Explains the World* Wagenmakers's 2020 study asking scientists how they think about scientific claims* David Hume's 1748 Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the problem of induction * Bertrand Russell's 1946 book History of Western Philosophy* Popper's 1959 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Popper* Kuhn's 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Kuhn* 2019 Scott Alexander review of the book* Michael Strevens's 2020 book The Knowledge Machine* Daniel Lakens's Coursera course on “improving your statistical inferences”CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Le paradoxe de la tolérance, formulé par le philosophe autrichien Karl Popper dans son ouvrage La société ouverte et ses ennemis (1945), soulève une question fondamentale sur les limites de la tolérance dans une société démocratique. Il met en lumière le risque qu'une tolérance illimitée puisse, paradoxalement, conduire à la disparition même de la tolérance.1. Énoncé du paradoxePopper affirme que "si une société est infiniment tolérante, elle risque d'être détruite par les intolérants". Autrement dit, si une société accepte sans restriction toutes les idées et opinions, y compris celles prônant l'intolérance et la destruction des valeurs démocratiques, ces forces intolérantes finiront par dominer et supprimer la tolérance elle-même.Ce paradoxe suggère qu'une société ouverte et tolérante doit établir des limites à la tolérance, notamment envers les idéologies qui cherchent à la détruire. Popper ne préconise pas une suppression immédiate des idées intolérantes, mais il insiste sur la nécessité de les confronter par le débat rationnel. Toutefois, si ces idées se montrent imperméables à la raison et incitent à la violence ou à la suppression des droits fondamentaux, alors la société doit légitimement interdire leur expression et leur diffusion.2. Les implications du paradoxeLe paradoxe de la tolérance soulève des questions cruciales pour les démocraties modernes, notamment en matière de liberté d'expression. Jusqu'où une société démocratique doit-elle tolérer des discours ou des mouvements qui remettent en cause ses principes fondamentaux, comme l'égalité, la liberté et le respect des droits humains ?En d'autres termes, faut-il tolérer les idées totalitaires, racistes ou extrémistes sous prétexte de liberté d'opinion ? Popper soutient que si ces idées ne sont pas contrôlées, elles peuvent prendre de l'ampleur et miner les bases de la démocratie, rendant impossible toute cohabitation pacifique.3. Application contemporaineAujourd'hui, le paradoxe de Popper est souvent invoqué dans les débats sur les discours de haine, l'extrémisme politique et la censure sur les réseaux sociaux. Il sert d'argument pour justifier des lois contre les discours incitant à la haine ou à la violence, tout en soulevant la difficulté de fixer les limites sans compromettre la liberté d'expression légitime.Le paradoxe de la tolérance met en évidence une tension inhérente aux sociétés démocratiques : pour préserver un espace de liberté, elles doivent parfois imposer des restrictions. Cela signifie qu'une tolérance absolue peut conduire à sa propre disparition, rendant nécessaire une vigilance et des mesures adaptées face aux menaces intolérantes. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Watch: https://youtu.be/_ywyQIFMtQEDarwinian evolution shapes modern biology, but the notion of evolution has a wider history, too. In this episode of the Sheldrake-Vernon dialogues, Rupert Sheldrake and Mark Vernon explore linear and cyclical conceptions of human and cosmic evolution and ask what they can mean in the modern world, where innovation and evolution appear to be escalating. They consider the significance of two main principles within evolution, that of diversity and creativity, and how these elements can be embraced. They also ask about the difficulty of talking about evolution today, given the presence of intelligent design and creationism. An inability to discuss evolution in a wider context is a loss because evolutionary theory itself is sophisticated and interestingly contested, both in the realm of biology but spirituality: the so-called evolution of consciousness. The discussion includes the ideas of Pierre Tielhard de Chardin and Owen Barfield, Karl Popper and Henri Bergson.

I take another deep dive into a deeply insightful and original lecture by Karl Popper: The Myth of the Framework. In this first part (of 4) I spend most of the episode unpacking our motivations, Popper's own thoughts on his success in combating bad ideologies and the purposes of discussion. Indeed this piece can be considered an instruction manual for discussions: how to have them and why. Below: timestamps for this episode: 00:00 Purpose of this new series 05:41 Woke, DEI and Popper 10:47 Popper in his own words on his “success” 12:23: Marxism and Relativism as “ideas that survive” 19:47 Popper in the modern day 22:30 Frameworks and “echo chambers”. 26:05 Some personal anecdotes and reflections 32:43: Defending an idea is different to explaining one. 35:00 Personal anecdotes. 47:47 Discussions 49:33 Why do we talk to each other? :) 59:13 The Myth of the Framework. Section 1 1:01:04 Commentary Section 1 1:03:33 The Myth of the Framework Section 2 1:04:29 Commentary Section 2 1:06:15 The Myth of the Framework Section 3a 1:07:07 Commentary Section 3a 1:12:12 The Myth of the Framework Section 3b 1:13:40 Commentary Section 3b 1:16:39 Should we “talk” to North Korea? 1:26:12 The West and its enemies 1:28:42 The Myth of the Framework Section 3c 1:29:59 Commentary Section 3c 1:32:25 The Myth of the Framework Section 3d 1:33:24 Closing Reflection

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper's article "Towards A Rational Theory Of Tradition", found in his book Conjectures and Refutations. It focuses specifically on his discussion of the various social functions that traditions play in human life, a significant part of which is to provide predictability. Popper also discusses why utopian and idealist plans to erase current conditions of society and start anew are bound to fail To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Popper's Conjectures and Refutations - https://amzn.to/4dFvJjA

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper's article "Towards A Rational Theory Of Tradition", found in his book Conjectures and Refutations. It focuses specifically on his distinction between traditions and institutions within social life, and how individuals interact with and are often conditioned by both of them To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Popper's Conjectures and Refutations - https://amzn.to/4dFvJjA

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper's article "Towards A Rational Theory Of Tradition", found in his book Conjectures and Refutations. It focuses specifically on what he thinks the key tasks of social science or theory are. Among these are studying the unintended and often undesired consequences of human choices, actions, and policies. Another important task is to examine not just social groups and institutions but also traditions, to determine what their social functions and workings are To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Popper's Conjectures and Refutations - https://amzn.to/4dFvJjA

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper's article "Towards A Rational Theory Of Tradition", found in his book Conjectures and Refutations. It focuses specifically on his discussion of how science develops historically. Popper does not think that observation and the "scientific method" taught in classes and textbooks is really at the core of what science is and how it develops. Instead, what sustains it is a critical tradition that involves discussion about whether accounts are accurate, coherent, and defensible, along with revision of accounts in light of that discussion To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Popper's Conjectures and Refutations - https://amzn.to/4dFvJjA

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper's article "Towards A Rational Theory Of Tradition", found in his book Conjectures and Refutations. It focuses specifically on the differing attitudes towards tradition that he distinguishes. These include an uncritical acceptance and advocacy of tradition but also a type of rationalism uncritically hostile to tradition that doesn't realize that rationalism and science themselves figure into a tradition. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Popper's Conjectures and Refutations - https://amzn.to/4dFvJjA