Podcast appearances and mentions of Karl Popper

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

Das ist ein Gespräch, das mir sehr viel Spaß gemacht. Axel Bojanowski und ich haben gleich zu Beginn der virtuellen Session losgelegt und diskutiert, bis ich dann den Notstopp ziehen musste — schließlich sollte das eine Podcast-Folge werden und nicht nur eine höchst interessante Diskussion unter vier Augen. Der Titel dieser Folge ist vielleicht kurios, aber mir ist das Zitat von Karl Popper aus den 1980er Jahren eingefallen: »Wissenschaft ist, wenn man schwarz gekleidet in einem dunklen Kohlenkeller nach einer schwarzen Katze sucht, von der man gar nicht weiß, ob sie existiert.« Davon leiten sich alle möglichen Folgen ab, unter anderem, dass Wissenschaft immer von Annahmen geprägt ist. Sie ist auch mit zum Teil großer Unsicherheit verbunden. Viel Bescheidenheit und Selbstkritik wären in der Interpretation und Darstellung notwendig. Davon ist in der heutigen Welt nicht viel zu finden. Besonders nicht Bescheidenheit und kritische, kluge Reflexion als Fundament unserer politischen und gesellschaftlichen Entscheidungen, eher aktivistische Grabenkämpfe, die mehr mit dem Circus Maximus als mit Expertenwesen zu tun haben.  Wir behandeln folglich in dieser Episode Qualitätsprobleme in der Wissenschaft, Aktivismus, die Rolle von Journalisten und Medien, Anreizsysteme, welche Themen in der Wissenschaft überhaupt diskutiert werden und von wem. Außerdem, welchen Schaden wir anrichten, wenn wir nicht mehr in der Lage sind, in kritischen Zeiten Ideen klug zu reflektieren und was wir mit unseren Kindern und Jugendlichen machen, wenn wir sie ständig mit apokalyptischen Visionen konfrontieren. Wo sind wir also falsch abgebogen? Was können wir alle tun, damit wir ein positives Bild der Zukunft entwickeln können und wir wieder darüber sprechen, wie wir Fortschritt erzielen können und nicht nur ständig im defätistisch/apokalyptischen Denken stecken bleiben. Ich sollte an dieser Stelle nicht vergessen, meinen Gast vorzustellen, auch wenn ihn die meisten sicher schon kennen: Axel Bojanowski diplomierte an der Universität Kiel über Klimaforschung. Seit 1997 arbeitet er als Wissenschaftsjournalist, u. a. für "Die Zeit", "Nature Geoscience", "Geo", "Stern" und der "Süddeutschen Zeitung". Er war Redakteur beim "Spiegel" , dann Chefredakteur bei "Bild der Wissenschaft" und "Natur". Seit August 2020 ist er Chefreporter für Wissenschaft bei "WELT". Bojanowski hat fünf Sachbücher verfasst. Der Berufsverband Deutscher Geowissenschaftler hat ihn 2024 für seine publizistischen Leistungen ausgezeichnet. Aus meiner persönlichen Sicht ist Axel Bojanowski einer der besten Wissenschaftsjournalisten, die ich kenne. Gerade im deutschsprachigen Raum würden wir viel mehr Journalisten seiner Güte dringend benötigen. Er hat auch zwei wichtige und sehr zugängliche Bücher geschrieben, deren Themen natürlich in diesem Gespräch auch thematisiert werden. Wir beginnen mit der Frage, wie die Qualität wissenschaftlicher Aussagen zu beurteilen ist. Wird es immer schwieriger zu erkennen, was ernsthafte Wissenschaft und was irrelevant, falsch oder Ideologie oder Aktivismus ist? »Science und Nature sind mittlerweile journalistische Produkte. Letztlich gelten sie als die wichtigsten Impact-Magazine für die Wissenschaft, aber eigentlich funktionieren sie nach den Gesetzen von Massenmedien.«  Es wird so getan, als ob es vollkommen klar wäre, wie man den Klimawandel begrenzt. Es wird nicht verstanden oder aufgegriffen, dass es sich um komplexe Zielkonflikte handelt. »The time for debate has ended.« Marcia Nutt Funktionieren journalistische Medien heute immer stärker so, dass es um persönliche Absicherung geht, indem man Nachrichten publiziert, von denen man annimmt, dass sie dem aktuellen Zeitgeist entsprechen und somit sozial erwünscht sind?  »Wenn man Artikel dieser Art bringt, hat man nichts zu befürchten.« Welche Geschichten erzählen wir uns als Gesellschaft und unseren Kindern und Jugendlichen? »Es handelt von weitgehend ignorierten Sensationen der jüngeren Menschheitsgeschichte der letzten 200 Jahre, also von der Industrialisierung und ihren Folgen, die die Welt besser gemacht haben, als die meisten Leute ahnen. Diese Geschichten werden kaum erzählt.« Erleben wir aktuell ein Multiorganversagen der wesentlichen Strukturen und Institutionen, die unsere moderne Zivilisation bisher ermöglicht haben? »Covid war sozusagen Klimadebatte im Schnelldurchlauf.« Sollten in einer Krise nicht verschiedene kluge Ideen unterschiedlicher Art diskutiert und abgewogen werden? »Es wurde ganz schnell verlangt, sich einem Lager zuzuordnen. Wenn man das nicht eindeutig selbst tut, dann wird man in ein Lager eingeordnet.« Was ist der Zusammenhang von Risiko, Unsicherheit und welche Entscheidungen folgen aus wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis? »Man hat bei Covid wie beim Klima hohe Risiken mit mit großen Unsicherheiten verbunden.[…]  Dann wird aber so getan als ob es eindeutig wäre und man im Grunde ganz klare Fakten aus der Wissenschaft bekäme und Handlungsanweisungen — was nie der Fall ist. Aus wissenschaftlichen Fakten folgen keine Handlungensanweisngen. Nie.« Gibt es tatsächlich immer nur die eine richtige Antwort auf ein Problem, follow the science — alternativlos? »Es gibt wahnsinnig viele Möglichkeiten, auf dieses Problem zu reagieren [Klima, Covid|. Es ist letztlich eine Wertefrage.« Finden wir immer wieder dieselbe Lagerbildung vor, die aber aus anderen »Quellen« gespeist ist, etwa Technologieoptimisten vs. -pessimisten, Liberale vs. Etatisten, und dergleichen? Das ist sehr ungünstig, denn:  »Wissenschaft ist nun mal der beste Erkenntnisprozess, den wir haben. […] Um Wissenschaft richtig zu verstehen, müsste man aber Unsicherheiten immer klar mitkommunizieren.« Ist es besser, eine falsche Karte oder gar keine Karte zu haben, wenn man eine Wanderung unternimmt? »Es geht auf diesen Ebenen [wissenschaftliche Prozesse] immer auch um Macht, das darf man nicht vergessen. Wenn man es versäumt, sich auf die Seite zu schlagen, die den Ton angibt, dann verliert man an Einfluss.« Im Journalismus wurde jede Form der Differenzierung sofort bekämpft. Wie kann man aber als Gesellschaft unter solchen Bedingungen bei komplexen Herausforderungen klug entscheiden? Wissenschaft und Journalismus sollten aber beide Prozesse der Wahrheitsfindung sein. Betonung liegt dabei auf »Prozess« — was bedeutet dies für die praktische Umsetzung? Werden Opportunismus und Feigheit, seine eigene Meinung zum Ausdruck zu bringen, zur größten Bedrohung unserer Gesellschaft? »Journalisten sind vor allem feige.« Wie sollten wir mit Unsicherheiten umgehen? »Die Unsicherheiten aber, und das ist ein wichtiger Punkt, können gerade nicht beruhigen. Es sind die Unsicherheiten, ein Problem an sich.« Gibt es nur umstrittene und irrelevante Wissenschafter?  Falsche Prognosen und Aussagen in der Öffentlichkeit haben für opportunistische Wissenschafter auch fast nur positive Seiten und werden in der Praxis kaum bestraft. Sie können dieselben falschen Ideen über Jahrzehnte breit publik machen und werden auch noch belohnt — weil sie ja vermeintlich auf der »richtigen« Seite stehen. Die grundlegende Frage dahinter scheint zu sein: Welche Geschichten erzählt sich eine Gesellschaft, von welchen wird sie geleitet, welche sind konstitutiv für ihre Kultur und wie können wir diese ändern, um damit wieder einen positiven Blick auf die Zukunft zu bekommen? Nadelöhre der Wissenschaft Die Universitäten haben sich, wie auch die Medien, immer weiter homogenisiert — von Vielfalt leider keine Spur.  »Das Milieu verstärkt sich selbst.« Was bedeutet das, etwa am Beispiel der Attributionsforschung? Was bedeutet dies für große politische Projekte, wie die deutsche Energiewende, die nicht nur im großen Maßstab gescheitert ist, sondern auch Deutschland schwer beschädigt hat. Wer trägt dafür nun die Verantwortung? Und die Medien stimmen alle das gleiche Lied an, ohne kritisch zu hinterfragen — warum eigentlich? »Man guckt gar nicht mehr, was stimmt, sondern: Was schreiben die anderen?« Warum ist es so schwer bei Klimafragen, die Fakten korrekt darzustellen? Aktuell wird von Politik und Aktivisten ständig betont, dass es viele Hitzetote gäbe. Es wird nicht erwähnt, dass es zehnmal so viele Kältetote gibt: »Across the 854 urban areas in Europe, we estimated an annual excess of 203 620 deaths attributed to cold and 20 173 attributed to heat.«, Pierre Masselot et al Diese einseitige Propaganda wird überall in der Gesellschaft verbreitet, auch an den Schulen: »Papa, wenn der Meeresspiegel steigt, sterben wir?!« Was richten wir mit unseren Kindern an? »Der Erfolg der menschlichen Zivilisation beruht darauf, dass man sich von der Natur unabhängig gemacht hat und dass man die Natur auch für sich genutzt hat. […] Diese Geschichten des Fortschritts sind wichtig zu verstehen; gerade für Kinder!« Wir leben nicht, wir sterben in Harmonie mit der Natur: »Have you heard people say that humans used to live in balance with nature? […] There was a balance. It wasn't because humans lived in balance with nature. Humans died in balance with nature. It was utterly brutal and tragic.«, Hans Rosling Erst seit rund 100 Jahren können wir davon sprechen, dass Menschen ansatzweise in modernem Lebensstandard leben. »Wir zogen in die Stadt zu einem alten Ehepaar in eine kleine Kammer, wo in einem Bett das Ehepaar, im andern meine Mutter und ich schliefen. Ich wurde in einer Werkstätte aufgenommen, wo ich Tücher häkeln lernte; bei zwölfstündiger fleißiger Arbeit verdiente ich 20 bis 25 Kreuzer im Tage. Wenn ich noch Arbeit für die Nacht nach Hause mitnahm, so wurden es einige Kreuzer mehr. Wenn ich frühmorgens um 6 Uhr in die Arbeit laufen mußte, dann schliefen andere Kinder meines Alters [ca. 11 Jahre] noch.« »Es war ein kalter strenger Winter und in unsre Kammer konnten Wind und Schnee ungehindert hinein. Wenn wir morgens die Tür öffneten, so mußten wir erst das angefrorene Eis zerhacken, um hinaus zu können, denn der Eintritt in die Kammer war direkt vom Hof und wir hatten nur eine einfache Glastür. Heizen konnten wir daheim nicht, das wäre Verschwendung gewesen, so trieb ich mich auf der Straße, in den Kirchen und auf dem Friedhof herum.«, Adelheid Popp ca. 1890 Ist der Mensch das Krebsgeschwür des Planeten? Was passiert, wenn wir über Jahrzehnte solche Narrative in Schulen, Universitäten und Medien verbreiten? Wird der Fortschritt paradoxerweise von denen bekämpft, die fortgeschritten sind? Welches eigenartige und ethisch fragwürdige Signal senden wir da an den Rest der Welt? »Elend bedarf keiner Erklärung. Das ist der Normalfall. Wohlstand bedarf der Erklärung.« Wir scheinen aber in einer Zeit zu leben, wo Wohlstand, zumindest für einige, so normal geworden ist, dass man jedes Gefühl für die realen Prozesse der Welt verlernt hat und ignoriert. Wo man selbst die vermeintlich wichtigsten eigenen Ziele obskuren Ideologien opfert: »Zu Zeiten, wo der Klimawandel angeblich das größte Problem ist, schaltet man klimafreundliche Kernkraftwerke ab.« Warum findet die Diskussion komplexer Phänomene so gespalten und so feindselig und gleichzeitig so pseudo-elitär statt? Wie das gut gemeinte Definieren von simplistischen Indikatoren das Gegenteil des gewünschten Ziels erreichen kann. Aus einem Indikator wird ein Götz, dem bedingungslos in den Untergang gefolgt wird. Klimaschutz nur mit Wind und Sonne ist eine Irreführung deutscher Aktivisten und gedankenloser Politik. Oder ist es vielmehr eine bait and switch Strategie? Man lockt mit dem einen, tauscht es dann aber durch eine andere Sache aus? Man lockt mit Klimawandel, möchte aber tatsächlich eine radikale politische Wende erzielen? Der Gipfel der Ideologie: ein Giga-Projekt wie die »Energiewende« ganz bewusst ohne Kostenkontrolle? Ein Bürger stellt eine Anfrage: »Zunächst dürfen wir anmerken, dass die Bundesregierung keine Gesamtkostenrechnung zur Energiewende unternimmt.«, Frage den Staat (2023) Damit bleibt noch eine grundlegende Frage: Wer soll, oder genauer, wer kann eigentlich die Verantwortung für die komplexen Entscheidungen der heutigen Zeit tragen? Soll eine Expertokratie die Welt retten, oder sind es letztens nur die Menschen selbst, die diese Verantwortung tragen müssen? Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 125: Ist Fortschritt möglich? Ideen als Widergänger über Generationen Episode 120: All In: Energie, Wohlstand und die Zukunft der Welt: Ein Gespräch mit Prof. Franz Josef Radermacher Episode 118: Science and Decision Making under Uncertainty, A Conversation with Prof. John Ioannidis Episode 116: Science and Politics, A Conversation with Prof. Jessica Weinkle Episode 112: Nullius in Verba — oder: Der Müll der Wissenschaft Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 96: Ist der heutigen Welt nur mehr mit Komödie beizukommen? Ein Gespräch mit Vince Ebert 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 91: Die Heidi-Klum-Universität, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Ehrmann und Prof. Sommer Episode 86: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, a conversation with Dr. Judith Curry Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 76: Existentielle Risiken Episode 74: Apocalype Always Axel Bojanowski Axel Bojanowski, Was Sie schon immer übers Klima wissen wollten, aber bisher nicht zu fragen wagten: Der Klimawandel zwischen Lobbygruppen und Wissenschaft, Westend (2024) Axel Bojanowski, 33 erstaunliche Lichtblicke, die zeigen, warum die Welt viel besser ist, als wir denken, Westend (2025) Homepage Axel Bojanowski Substack Die Welt Twitter/X LinkedIn Fachliche Referenzen Marcia McNutt, The beyond-two-degree inferno, Science Editorial (2015) Patrick Brown, Do Climate Attribution Studies Tell the Full Story? (2025) Roger Pielke Jr., What the media won't tell you about ... hurricanes (2022) Roger Pielke Jr., Making Sense of Trends in Disaster Losses (2022) Roger Pielke Jr., What the media won't tell you about . . . Drought in Western and Central Europe (2022) Rob Henderson, 'Luxury beliefs' are latest status symbol for rich Americans (2019) Bernd Stegemann, Die Klima-Gouvernanten und ihre unartigen Zöglinge (2025) Steven Koonin, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, BenBella Books (2021) Hart aber Fair (Sonja Flaßpöhler) (2021) Pierre Masselot et al, Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold; 854 cities in Europe, Lancet Planet Health (2023) Hans Rosling, Factfulness, Sceptre (2018) Adelheid Popp, Jugendgeschichte einer Arbeiterin (1909) Axel Bojanowski, Scheuklappen der Klimaforschung (2024) Frag den Staat: Kosten der Energiewende von 2000 bis 2022 (2023)

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

Şüphe birçok durumda insanı hayatta tutan, onu doğru bilgiyle kavuşturan bir dürtü. Fakat söz konusu şüphe olduğunda bir denge de tutturmak gerekiyor. Neyden, ne zaman, nasıl, nereye kadar ve ne düzeyde şüphe duymamız gerektiğini doğru saptamalıyız. Mesela bilim... Ondan ne kadar, hangi düzeyde şüphelenmemiz gerekir? Hiçbir Şey Tesadüf Değil'in bu bölümünde bilimin güvenilirliğini sorguluyoruz. Bu çağda hangi bilimsel verinin doğru, hangisinin yanlış olduğunu nasıl saptayacağımız üzerine konuşuyoruz.------- Podbee Sunar -------Bu podcast, On Dijital Bankacılık hakkında reklam içerir.Bankacılık On'la Rahat. Dünya Döndükçe EFT-Havale- Fast Ücreti Yok.ON Mobil'i İndir! Bu podcast, Pegasus hakkında reklam içerir.Yeni seyahat rotanı planlamak için hemen https://www.flypgs.com/'u veya Pegasus Mobil uygulamasını ziyaret et!Bu podcast, Garanti BBVA hakkında reklam içerir.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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.

No episódio #33 do Em Cólicas, a gente desabafa: tá difícil ter paciência com gente. Sabe aquela sensação de querer distância até de quem não fez nada demais? A tal da preguiça social? Pois é… não estamos sozinhas nessa.Fomos investigar por que tanta gente anda com a tolerância no limite – e encontramos reflexões que vão do paradoxo da tolerância, de Karl Popper, até a falta de empatia e o excesso de indignação.

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

Na Alemanha, França e Romênia, decisões judiciais tentam conter partidos autoritários — mas isso, por si só, talvez não seja suficiente. A última semana marcou mais um capítulo nas tensões entre a extrema-direita e a justiça — desta vez, na Europa. Thomás Zicman de Barros, analista político, especial para a RFIForam dias de decisões e indecisões. Na Alemanha, na segunda-feira (5), o Escritório de Proteção da Constituição declarou o partido AfD, Alternativa para a Alemanha, como um grupo extremista, citando sua proximidade com setores neonazistas e a negação do princípio de igualdade — de acordo com a lógica do partido, imigrantes seriam cidadãos de segunda classe.Essa classificação tem implicações jurídicas importantes: o partido passa a ser monitorado pelos serviços de inteligência e pode, em última instância, ser banido. Mas, diante da reação e da pressão de apoiadores da AfD, o mesmo órgão recuou na quinta-feira (8), afirmando que o caso ainda precisa ser mais bem avaliado.A indefinição gerou surpresa. Afinal, não é evidente que a AfD é um partido de extrema direita? Por que ainda se hesita em chamá-los pelo nome? Parte da resposta está no esforço — hoje quase reflexo — de acadêmicos e políticos de criar tipologias para grupos reacionários, como se a urgência estivesse em classificá-los, e não em enfrentá-los. Cria-se assim uma taxonomia que termina por complexificar o que, no fundo, deveria ser simples."Cinquenta tons de fascismo"No debate acadêmico, costuma-se distinguir diferentes tipos de ultradireita — os chamados "cinquenta tons de fascismo". Nessa tipologia, separa-se a extrema-direita da direita radical. A diferença teórica entre elas seria esta: a extrema-direita se caracteriza por buscar o poder por meio da força. Já a direita radical, embora também antidemocrática em seus valores, opera prioritariamente dentro das regras eleitorais e institucionais.Essa distinção pode ter alguma utilidade no terreno conceitual. Mas, na prática, tem sido usada para relativizar os riscos concretos que esses grupos representam, normalizando-os. No fim, essa taxonomia pouco nos ajuda a compreender o passado, tampouco o presente — e menos ainda a nos preparar para o futuro.Historicamente, a extrema direita recorreu a todos os meios para chegar ao poder. O caso da Alemanha dos anos 1930 é exemplar: a extrema direita ascendeu por vias legais, com apoio decisivo da centro-direita, que a normalizou e acreditou poder controlá-la.O resultado foi a destruição das instituições republicanas por dentro. Mesmo hoje, líderes eleitos não hesitam em flertar com o autogolpe assim que consolidam sua posição. O debate sobre banir ou não a extrema direita da vida política não se restringe à Alemanha, onde o quadro legal prevê explicitamente essa possibilidade.Na França, no mês passado, Marine Le Pen foi declarada inelegível após ser condenada por desvio de verbas do Parlamento Europeu. Se o veredito for mantido, ela estará fora das eleições de 2027, mesmo liderando as pesquisas.Já na Romênia, as conturbadas eleições de dezembro de 2024 — vencidas no primeiro turno pelo então desconhecido candidato de extrema-direita Călin Georgescu — foram anuladas pela Corte Suprema, após denúncias de manipulação da opinião pública por agentes russos nas redes sociais.Esses episódios nos obrigam a fazer uma pergunta difícil: tais medidas são legítimas? Cada caso tem suas especificidades, mas todos podem ser interpretados à luz de uma doutrina conhecida como democracia defensiva — ou democracia militante.O conceito foi formulado nos anos 1930 pelo jurista alemão Karl Loewenstein, exilado nos Estados Unidos após a ascensão do nazismo. A ideia central é que democracias não devem assistir passivamente à ascensão de forças que, uma vez no poder, trabalham para miná-las desde dentro.Como escreveu Karl Popper — filósofo austríaco e liberal convicto — no famoso paradoxo da tolerância: não se pode tolerar o intolerante, porque, ao ganhar espaço, ele destrói o próprio princípio da pluralidade.Vale lembrar: democracia nunca foi apenas uma questão de votos ou de eleições. Historicamente, o sufrágio universal e a escolha de representantes por meio do voto nem sempre foram considerados mecanismos democráticos — pelo contrário, a eleição era muitas vezes vista como um método aristocrático, destinado à seleção dos “melhores”. Medidas para banir extrema direita não bastamO que importa aqui é o núcleo constante da ideia de democracia: a igualdade. É isso o que está em jogo quando forças extremistas tentam capturar o aparato eleitoral para fins autoritários. Mas então essas medidas para banir a extremadireita bastam? Evidentemente, não. Impedir a participação da AfD, de Le Pen ou de candidatos extremistas em eleições pode ser necessário — mas não é suficiente.É preciso perguntar por que esses grupos têm, afinal, tanta força eleitoral. Nesse ponto, os defensores da democracia liberal também precisam fazer sua autocrítica. É preciso entender que a força da extrema-direita vem da crescente insatisfação de cidadãos precarizados, desamparados, angustiados.Cidadãos que percebem que, em sua forma atual, a democracia liberal não tem sido capaz de oferecer respostas convincentes aos dilemas contemporâneos. Nesse sentido, é preciso não apenas conservar a democracia, mas reconstruí-la em novas bases.Se a extrema direita impõe riscos concretos, não basta a democracia defensiva, é preciso uma democracia ofensiva — capaz de agir, disputar, transformar. Uma democracia que recupere e atualize seu princípio mais fundamental: a igualdade.É apenas com mais igualdade — e mais inclusão — que talvez se encontre, enfim, uma resposta à altura.

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.

Karl Poppers filosofi kretser rundt ordet «kritikk». Det er evnen til å motta og motstå hard kritikk som viser oss hvilken holdbarhet våre overbevisninger har, enten det dreier seg om vitenskap eller politikk. Han ble først kjent for sin vitenskapsfilosofi, men arbeidet også mye med politisk filosofi. Som ung var han kort tid marxist, men ble raskt en dedikert antimarxist. Nazismens fremvekst motiverte ham til å arbeide mer inngående med de filosofiske forutsetningene for illiberale ideologier. Bare det liberale demokratiet kan sikre de samfunnsmessige vilkårene for den kritiske tenkningens utfoldelse. Friheten har for ham en forrang fremfor politiske mål som å skape sosial enhet, stabilitet og velstand. Ikke minst advarer han mot utopisk tenkning, og påpeker: Den som bestreber seg på å realisere himmelriket her på jorden, vil bare lykkes med å omforme den til et helvete.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy 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?

In this episode of the Awareness to Action Enneagram podcast, Mario Sikora and Seth “Creek” Creekmore explore a list of books that have had the biggest influence on Mario and the way he thinks about the Enneagram. Even though none of the books are about the Enneagram, they have influenced how Mario thinks about concepts, such as cognitive dissonance and social psychology.TIMESTAMPS[00:01] Intro[02:04] Knowledge is power[07:09] Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)[11:34] The Demon-Haunted World[22:42] Philosophy and the Real World[25:58] The Selfish Gene[36:13] Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind[39:20] Sacred World[44:47] The Essential Drucker[56:44] Other book recommendations[59:29] OutroConnect with us:Awareness to ActionEnneagram on DemandIG: @ataenneagrampodEmail: info@awarenesstoaction.comSend a voice message: speakpipe.com/AwarenesstoActionBooks:Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot AronsonThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganPhilosophy and the Real World: An Introduction to Karl Popper by Brian MageeThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsZen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryū SuzukiSacred World: The Shambhala Way to Gentleness, Bravery, and Power by Jeremy and Karen HaywardThe Essential Drucker by Peter DruckerThe Wisest One in the Room: How You Can Benefit from Social Psychology's Most Powerful Insights by Thomas Gilovich and Lee RossHow We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life by Thomas GilovichPsychology of Intelligence Analysis by Richards HeuerThe Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch

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.

We discuss the current state of western politics, modern day fascism and its roots.https://ongenocide.com/Afterword: a couple of extra thoughts from KieranFirstly, I was unduly harsh about Karl Popper's Open Society and its Enemies. I disagree strongly with the central premise of the book, but I recall thinking that there were some good valid points made by Popper.Secondly, I regret not expanding more on the simplistic, anti-intellectual and emotive aspect of fascist politics – or at least the public-facing part of fascist politics. Like neoconservatives, fascists like to feed simple narratives to people in a very direct purposive way. This is another reason that the sophistication and simple brute force (in terms of scale and access to resources) of public relations techniques has actually helped create a generalised fascism.Modern communications techniques show exactly what psychological buttons to push to get the desired results. Not only does the professionalisation of political rhetoric make fascist-style manipulation open to anyone with money, it makes it virtually compulsory among major political parties. Their reliance on oligarchy money and institutional power means that they cannot organically represent democratic wishes, so they must create political backing through such manipulation – hence the culture war.In the simplistic political discourse thus created, nonsense is more effective than reasoning. Calling concerns over climate change “woke”, for example, is like throwing red meat to the faithful who are conditioned to respond to a very amorphous non-specific notion of what is good and what is bad. This sort of appeal to gut instinct is very characteristic of fascism and it may be the most dangerous thing we now see because the anger that is provoked by a meaningless term cannot be argued with.This episode's co-hostsKieran, KyleTimestamps0:00 Introductions2:09 The Undercurrent3:54 Political Binary 14:11 Putting on a Persona23:59 Tying in the Last Four Years28:44 The Will to Power 32:35 David Seymour37:01 Victimhood44:10 Embedding Journalists47:50 Scratch A Liberal55:04 Absurdities1:02:54 Urgency and Might1:09:18 Right Wing Fracturing1:13:18 Meddling With The Numbers1:19:21 Seymours Love of Liberal Ideology1:21:33 ClosingsIntro/Outro by The Prophet MotiveSupport us here: https://www.patreon.com/1of200

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.

Darwinian 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.For other dialogues - https://www.markvernon.com/talks

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

In this episode, Megan and Frank examine astrology. What is astrology, and why do people practice it? What are the strongest objections to astrology? Should astrology count as a science? If not, why not? What can the case of astrology teach us about the role of science in a democratic society? And why does the ancient practice of reading the stars prompt us to ponder the deepest aspects of human experience? Thinkers discussed include: Aristotle, Cicero, Ptolemy, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Carl Sagan, Ian James Kidd, and Massimo Pigliucci.-----------------------Hosts' Websites:Megan J Fritts (google.com)Frank J. Cabrera (google.com)Email: philosophyonthefringes@gmail.com-----------------------Bibliography:Philosophy of Science and the Occult | State University of New York Press (first section is an invaluable resource, containing the 1975 manifesto, Feyerabend's critique, and articles summarizing statistical studies disconfirming astrology)Cabrera - Evidence and explanation in Cicero's On DivinationLacusCurtius • Ptolemy — TetrabiblosLacusCurtius • Cicero — De Divinatione: Book IA double-blind test of astrology | NatureReadings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism (See for short selections from Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos)Ian James Kidd - Why did Feyerabend Defend Astrology? Integrity, Virtue, and the Authority of Science (An excellent paper that very much informed our discussion of the science & society question)M. Pigliucci - Was Feyerabend Right in Defending Astrology? A Commentary on Kidd-----------------------Cover Artwork by Logan Fritts-------------------------Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/neon-signsLicense code: YYRPW29K1IDMU76F

Barry Loewer is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers. Before that he did his PhD in philosophy at Stanford. Barry works largely in the philosophy of physics, the philosophy of science, and metaphysics. This is Barry's third appearance on the show. He was last on episode 189 with David Albert, in which Robinson, David, and Barry discussed David and Barry's joint program known as “The Mentaculus”, which they use to solve many problems in the foundations of physics, from probability to the direction of time. In this episode, Barry and Robinson discuss the philosophical foundations of science, touching on the relationship between science and pseudoscience, Karl Popper, string theory, scientific realism, and many other important debates and figures. If you're interested in the foundations of physics, then please check out the the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics, which is devoted to providing a home for research and education in this important area. Any donations are immensely helpful at this early stage in the institute's life. The Probability Map of the Universe: https://a.co/d/4XoYTMY The John Bell Institute: https://www.johnbellinstitute.org OUTLINE 00:00 Introduction 7:53 On Pseudoscience and Astrology 11:40 Falsification as a Criterion of Science 16:40 Is String Theory Pseudoscience? 20:14 On Marxism 24:45 What Is Scientific Realism? 34:35 On Hilary Putnam 42:16 Science Vs Metaphysics 48:32 Time in Science and Metaphysics 52:38 On Fundamentalia 56:01 On Reductionism 1:00:04 On Consciousness and Emergence 1:04:56 On Causation 1:25:52 On Time Travel 1:28:29 On Explanation and Thermodynamics 1:39:23 On Free Will 1:47:00 The Laws of Nature Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

I discuss the point of philosophy and how "concrete" the work of Karl Popper and David Deutsch are in marshalling examples taken directly from science in order to illustrate how philosophy solves problems in other areas. Then I have some lengthy remarks on some recent criticism of Popper and Deutsch which is found here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-152605209

In this episode we look at another critical time period during 2020, the George Floyd riots and the Marxist part that BLM played in it. Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheFactHunter Website: thefacthunter.com Email: thefacthunter@mail.com Snail Mail: George Hobbs PO Box 109 Goldsboro, MD  21636Show Notes: Psychological Operation - (The BLM + George Floyd, CV 19 Psy-op...) 2020 Documentary (start after the first minute” https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=78UM24DD69AA George Soros Is The Real Controlling Power Behind The Black Lives Matter Movement https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/george-soros-real-power-behind-black-lives-matter-movement/ Floyd George Psyop: Staged Masonic Sacrifice? https://www.henrymakow.com/2020/06/george-staged-masonic-sacrifice.html Is The George Floyd Incident a Hoax? https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/06/14/george-floyd-fake-death/ J6 PSYOP: The Entire Black Operation Was Choreographed and Carried Out By The FBI https://stateofthenation.co/?p=160034 Stop pretending the BLM protests were peaceful Are journalists deliberately ignoring the effects of these devastating riots? https://unherd.com/2020/07/the-ugly-truth-about-the-blm-protests/ Is Treasonous FBI Running BLM Riots? https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-08-11-is-treasonous-fbi-running-the-blm-riots.html Comparing 'insurrections': J6 vs. George Floyd riots https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-08-11-is-treasonous-fbi-running-the-blm-riots.html Open Society 990 (2019) https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/137029285/202013219349105066/full Injustice, American Style: BLM Rioters Walk — J6 Defendants Get Almost 20 Years https://thenewamerican.com/us/crime/injustice-american-style-blm-rioters-walk-j6-defendants-get-almost-20-years/ Patrick Gaspard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Gaspard Also President of Open Society George Soros Influenced by Karl Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Why Marxist Organizations Like BLM Seek to Dismantle the “Western Nuclear Family” https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-marxist-organizations-blm-seek-dismantle-western-nuclear-family

Where do you arrive if you follow Vaden's obsessions to their terminus? You arrive at Brian Boyd, the world expert on the two titanic thinkers of the 20th century: Karl Popper and Vladimir Nabokov. Boyd wrote his PhD thesis on Nabokov's 1969 novel Ada, impressing Nabokov's wife Vera so much that he was invited to catalogue Nabokov's unpublished archives. This led to Boyd's two-volume biography of Nabokov, which Vera kept on her beside table. Boyd also developed an interest in Popper, and began research for his biography in 1996, which was then promptly delayed as he worked on his book, On The Origin of Stories, which we [dedicated episode #50]((https://www.incrementspodcast.com/50) to. In this episode, we ask Professor Boyd to contrast and compare his two subjects, by addressing the question: What could Karl Popper have learned from Vladimir Nabokov? We discuss How Brian discovered Nabokov Did Nabokov have a philosophy? Nabokov's life as a scientist Was Nabokov simply a writer of puzzles? How much should author intentions matter when interpreting literature? References Boyd's book on the evolutionary origins of art and literature: On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction (https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Stories-Evolution-Cognition-Fiction/dp/0674057112) Our episode on the above (https://www.incrementspodcast.com/50) Stalking Nabokov (https://www.amazon.com/Stalking-Nabokov-Brian-Boyd/dp/0231158564), by Boyd. Boyd's book on Pale Fire: Nabokov's Pale Fire: The Magic of Artistic Discovery (https://www.amazon.com/Nabokovs-Pale-Fire-Artistic-Discovery/dp/0691089574) AdaOnline (https://www.ada.auckland.ac.nz/), annotated notes on Ada by Boyd. Art historian and one of Popper's close friends, Ernst Gombrich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Gombrich) # Errata The Burghers of Calais is by Balzac rather than Rodin The Nabokov family fled Leningrad rather than Petrograd (as Petersburg had become during WWI). Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) Do you love words, or ideas? Email us one but not the other at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Brian Boyd.

Karl Popper once said, “Open societies are their own worst enemies.” In this episode, Michèle Duvivier Pierre-Louis, former prime minister of Haiti and president of the Knowledge and Freedom Foundation, reflects on this idea. She shares her perspective on Haiti's development challenges and paths to peace. Michèle emphasizes the importance of negotiating with opponents to advance the public good and building institutions through compromise. Tune in for her insights on fostering collaboration and creating a brighter future for Haiti.  This podcast is produced in partnership with the Pearson Institute for the Study and Resolution of Global Conflicts. For more information, please visit their website at www.thepearsoninstitute.org.  Podcast Production Credits: Interviewing: Isabella Nascimento and Ralph Valiere Editing: Nishita Karun Production: Isabella Nascimento 

We take a deep dive into Karl Popper's philosophical ideas about music that he outlines in four chapters in this intellectual autobiography Unended Quest: “Music,” Speculations about the Rise of Polyphonic Music,” “Two Kinds of Music,” and “Progressivism in Art, Especially in Music.”  We are joined by Peter's brother, Chris Johansen, who is a straight-ahead jazz tenor saxophonist living in NYC.  We discuss how Popper's ideas on classical music intersect with Chris's ideas on jazz, as well as the role of conservatism in music. We examine how Popper's thinking on music influenced his concept of the 3 worlds and his ideas on such concepts as dogmatism, essentialism, and historicism.  Plus, you get Bruce's rant about the importance of constraints in music, science, criticism, and Popper's epistemology. Bruce argues that absent at least the attempt to outline epistemological conventions (i.e. constraints) you can't error correct Popper's epistemology and you lose what makes it special. You can listen to more of Chris's music here. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

The boys drink and review "Beast of Both Worlds," a "Bi-Coastal IPA" from Lagunitas. George Soros has become a whipping boy for the right. The man was born a Hungarian Jew and lived through both Naziism and communism, but made his respectable pile of money in the United States. P&C start off with a brief biography, but move on to speak about his underlying philosophy and the causes he promotes. Soros was deeply influenced by the philosophy of Karl Popper and his concept of open and closed societies. In an open society individuals are free to think and act independently with minimal government control. An open society has pluralism and tolerance, democratic governance, change and reform (because no one holds the ultimate truth), and a commitment to our own limitations (fallibilism). If giving to political causes qualifies a person as a philanthropist, Soros is a big one. His foundation supports ... * Democracy and human rights * Education * Criminal justice reform * Public health * LGBTQIDYSDLKSDH rights * Immigration and refugee support * Racial and social justice * Economic equity * Media freedom * Climate change and environmental protection All of these flow logically from his commitment to the "open society" concept, and Soros takes a very liberal stance on all these issues.

What if embracing randomness could unlock better decision-making in your work?In this episode, I welcome back Matt Ballantine, a returning guest known for his insightful and playful take on work and life.  This time, Matt dives into the concept of randomness and how it can be a strategic tool in navigating complex problems that defy traditional solutions.From engaging discussions on how randomness applies to decision-making to his creative uses of tarot-like card decks for ideation, Matt demonstrates that randomness is not just chaos—it's a pathway to innovation.He also shares how randomness has played a role in his projects, like the 100 Coffees initiative, which connected him with people in unexpected ways and reinforced the idea that unstructured, agenda-free time can lead to powerful outcomes.In our discussion, we explore practical applications of randomness in business settings, why organizations may resist these approaches, and how embracing randomness could unlock creative potential and solve cloud-like challenges.To see the cards that Matt and I talked about: https://photos.app.goo.gl/8Sf6zrsKoL74VxjZ6Guest BiographyMatt Ballantine describes himself as a curious explorer of ideas with a background in technology, organizational culture, and creative problem-solving. Currently an account manager at Equal Experts, Matt's work spans various roles that emphasize unconventional approaches to strategy and innovation.He is known for his thought-provoking projects, like the 100 Coffees initiative, which challenged norms of structured networking and led to surprising insights. In addition, Matt has been exploring the intersection of randomness and decision-making, using creative tools such as card decks inspired by tarot to facilitate out-of-the-box thinking.Find Matt on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mattballantine/Follow him on Twitter/X: https://x.com/ballantine70AI-Generated Timestamped Summary[00:00:00] - Opening & IntroductionChristian welcomes back Matt Ballantine to discuss randomness, highlighting Matt's previous appearance and his exploration of randomness in work and life.Matt shares how randomness can be a strategic advantage when addressing complex, unpredictable problems.[00:02:00] - 100 Coffees Experiment RecapMatt recounts his "100 Coffees" project from 2023, which involved meeting 138 people for unstructured, hour-long conversations to spark serendipitous insights.He notes the challenge many people face in allocating unplanned conversation time due to hyper-optimized schedules.[00:04:12] - Organizational ImplicationsMatt reflects on how the absence of informal interactions in modern work setups, like back-to-back virtual meetings, has stripped valuable opportunities for unstructured exchanges.[00:07:13] - Current Projects & RandomnessMatt discusses his current work as an account manager at Equal Experts, which operates without traditional hierarchical structures.He introduces his project, the "Business Meerkat" deck, a tool for exploring business problems using randomness, and his ongoing research and writing on the theme of randomness.[00:08:50] - The Clock and Cloud AnalogyDrawing from Karl Popper, Matt contrasts "clock-like" (predictable, analyzable) and "cloud-like" (complex, unpredictable) problems. He suggests randomness as a strategy for navigating cloud-like problems.[00:10:32] - Definitions of RandomnessMatt distinguishes between mathematical randomness (equal probability outcomes, like dice rolls) and perceived randomness (unforeseen events).[00:15:00] - Human Behavioral Dynamics & ComplexityMatt and Christian discuss how perfect information in human systems, like traffic, can create new problems due to human reactions, illustrating the complexity of cloud-like problems.[00:17:36] - The Spectrum of ControlOrganizations often lean towards deterministic approaches, believing in total control. However, randomness introduces new approaches to handle unpredictable outcomes.[00:19:00] - Biological AnalogyT-cells in the immune system exemplify natural, evolved randomness through their adaptive protein shuffling. Netflix's A/B testing process is cited as a parallel in using randomness strategically.[00:22:00] - Risk and Decision-MakingChristian and Matt discuss how decision-making involves inherent risk and unintended consequences. Randomness can offer fresh perspectives when facing uncertain, multi-faceted decisions.[00:24:26] - Business ApplicationsMatt explains how his tarot-inspired "Business Meerkat" cards help teams analyze problems by introducing random prompts, fostering unexpected insights and collaborative thinking.[00:31:50] - Group Dynamics and Random InputRandom input encourages active participation and mitigates power dynamics in meetings, allowing genuine, spontaneous collaboration.[00:37:26] - Comfort with UncertaintyMatt acknowledges that adopting randomness can be intimidating but argues that it's crucial for those tackling complex, cloud-like problems.[00:45:16] - External Thinking ToolsMatt highlights how humans use external tools (e.g., notebooks, cards) to process and enhance thinking, making randomness a valuable external input for creative processes.[00:48:00] - Childlike ExplorationChristian reflects on how educational and workplace norms stifle the playful, exploratory thinking that randomness can reinvigorate.LinksMatt's previous appearance on the show: https://www.humanriskpodcast.com/matt-ballantine-on-the-human-side-of-technology/Matt's website: https://mmitii.mattballantine.com/The book website: randomthebook.com The three apps Matt mentions:https://ee-hacking-apophenia-random-photos.vercel.app/https://ee-hacking-apophenia-creativator.vercel.app/https://ee-hacking-apophenia-business-meerkat.vercel.app/Cardshop: wb40podcast.com/shop

The Nature of Christian Doctrine: Its Origins, Development, and Function (Oxford UP, 2024) offers a groundbreaking account of the origins, development, and enduring significance of Christian doctrine, explaining why it remains essential to the life of Christian communities. Noting important parallels between the development of scientific theories and Christian doctrine, Alister E. McGrath examines the growing view of early Christianity as a 'theological laboratory'. We can think of doctrinal formulations as proposals submitted for testing across the Christian world, rather than as static accounts of orthodoxy. This approach fits the available evidence much better than theories of suppressed early orthodoxies and reinforces the importance of debate within the churches as a vital means of testing doctrinal formulations. McGrath offers a robust critique of George Lindbeck's still-influential Nature of Doctrine (1984), raising significant concerns about its reductionist approach. He instead provides a more reliable account of the myriad functions of doctrine, utilising Mary Midgley's concept of 'mapping' as a means of coordinating the multiple aspects of complex phenomena. McGrath's approach also employs Karl Popper's 'Three Worlds', allowing the theoretical, objective, and subjective aspects of doctrine to be seen as essential and interconnected. We see how Christian doctrine offers ontological disclosure about the nature of reality, while at the same time providing a coordinating framework which ensures that its various aspects are seen as parts of a greater whole. Doctrine provides a framework, or standpoint, that allows theological reality to be seen and experienced in a new manner; it safeguards and articulates the core vision of reality that is essential for the proper functioning and future flourishing of Christian communities. Alister E. McGrath served as Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and subsequently as Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion. He initially studied natural sciences at Oxford and holds a special interest in how scientific method can illuminate aspects of Christian theology. He also served as Professor of Divinity at Gresham College, London, a position established in 1597. He has delivered the Bampton Lectures at the University of Oxford, the Hulsean Lectures at the University Cambridge, and the Gifford Lectures at the University Aberdeen. 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. Twitter. 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

The Nature of Christian Doctrine: Its Origins, Development, and Function (Oxford UP, 2024) offers a groundbreaking account of the origins, development, and enduring significance of Christian doctrine, explaining why it remains essential to the life of Christian communities. Noting important parallels between the development of scientific theories and Christian doctrine, Alister E. McGrath examines the growing view of early Christianity as a 'theological laboratory'. We can think of doctrinal formulations as proposals submitted for testing across the Christian world, rather than as static accounts of orthodoxy. This approach fits the available evidence much better than theories of suppressed early orthodoxies and reinforces the importance of debate within the churches as a vital means of testing doctrinal formulations. McGrath offers a robust critique of George Lindbeck's still-influential Nature of Doctrine (1984), raising significant concerns about its reductionist approach. He instead provides a more reliable account of the myriad functions of doctrine, utilising Mary Midgley's concept of 'mapping' as a means of coordinating the multiple aspects of complex phenomena. McGrath's approach also employs Karl Popper's 'Three Worlds', allowing the theoretical, objective, and subjective aspects of doctrine to be seen as essential and interconnected. We see how Christian doctrine offers ontological disclosure about the nature of reality, while at the same time providing a coordinating framework which ensures that its various aspects are seen as parts of a greater whole. Doctrine provides a framework, or standpoint, that allows theological reality to be seen and experienced in a new manner; it safeguards and articulates the core vision of reality that is essential for the proper functioning and future flourishing of Christian communities. Alister E. McGrath served as Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and subsequently as Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion. He initially studied natural sciences at Oxford and holds a special interest in how scientific method can illuminate aspects of Christian theology. He also served as Professor of Divinity at Gresham College, London, a position established in 1597. He has delivered the Bampton Lectures at the University of Oxford, the Hulsean Lectures at the University Cambridge, and the Gifford Lectures at the University Aberdeen. 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. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The Nature of Christian Doctrine: Its Origins, Development, and Function (Oxford UP, 2024) offers a groundbreaking account of the origins, development, and enduring significance of Christian doctrine, explaining why it remains essential to the life of Christian communities. Noting important parallels between the development of scientific theories and Christian doctrine, Alister E. McGrath examines the growing view of early Christianity as a 'theological laboratory'. We can think of doctrinal formulations as proposals submitted for testing across the Christian world, rather than as static accounts of orthodoxy. This approach fits the available evidence much better than theories of suppressed early orthodoxies and reinforces the importance of debate within the churches as a vital means of testing doctrinal formulations. McGrath offers a robust critique of George Lindbeck's still-influential Nature of Doctrine (1984), raising significant concerns about its reductionist approach. He instead provides a more reliable account of the myriad functions of doctrine, utilising Mary Midgley's concept of 'mapping' as a means of coordinating the multiple aspects of complex phenomena. McGrath's approach also employs Karl Popper's 'Three Worlds', allowing the theoretical, objective, and subjective aspects of doctrine to be seen as essential and interconnected. We see how Christian doctrine offers ontological disclosure about the nature of reality, while at the same time providing a coordinating framework which ensures that its various aspects are seen as parts of a greater whole. Doctrine provides a framework, or standpoint, that allows theological reality to be seen and experienced in a new manner; it safeguards and articulates the core vision of reality that is essential for the proper functioning and future flourishing of Christian communities. Alister E. McGrath served as Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and subsequently as Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion. He initially studied natural sciences at Oxford and holds a special interest in how scientific method can illuminate aspects of Christian theology. He also served as Professor of Divinity at Gresham College, London, a position established in 1597. He has delivered the Bampton Lectures at the University of Oxford, the Hulsean Lectures at the University Cambridge, and the Gifford Lectures at the University Aberdeen. 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. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

What do you do when one of your intellectual idols comes on the podcast? Bombard them disagreements of course. We were thrilled to have David Deutsch on the podcast to discuss whether the concept of belief is a useful lens on human cognition, when probability and statistics should be deployed, and whether he disagrees with Karl Popper on abstractions, the truth, and nothing but the truth. Follow David on Twitter (@DavidDeutschOxf) or find his website here (https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/). We discuss Whether belief is a fruitful lens through which to analyze ideas Whether a non-quantitative form of belief can be defended How does belief bottom out epistemologically? Whether statistics and probability are useful Where should statistics and probability be used in practice? The Popper-Miller theorem Statements vs propositions and their relevance for truth Whether Popper and Deutsch disagree about truth References The Popper-Miller theorem. See the original paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/302687a0) David's 2021 talk on the correspondence theory of truth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-opI-jghs) David's talk on physics without probability (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc). Hempel's paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox) The Beginning of Infinity (https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Infinity-Explanations-Transform-World/dp/0143121359) Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem (https://www.amazon.ca/Knowledge-Body-Mind-Problem-Defence-Interaction/dp/0415135567) Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @DavidDeutschOxf Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Believe in us and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) What's the truth about your belief on the probability of useful statistics? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: David Deutsch.

George Soros, often a figure shrouded in both mystique and controversy, is the subject of the documentary "The Great Speculator - The Mysterious Life of George Soros." Born in 1930 to a Hungarian family with a history of surviving adversity, Soros's early life was defined by the pragmatic survival lessons from his father, who had endured the horrors of World War I and the Nazi occupation of Hungary. These experiences ingrained in Soros a profound understanding of risk and survival, elements that later became cornerstones of his speculative financial strategies. The film delves into Soros's academic years at the London School of Economics where he was deeply influenced by the philosopher Karl Popper, shaping his views on market dynamics and the imperfection of knowledge. It follows his journey into the world of finance, where after a rocky start in London, he moved to New York, setting the stage for the establishment of his Quantum Fund. This fund became a vehicle for his speculative prowess, famously earning him a billion dollars during 1992's Black Wednesday by betting against the British pound. "The Great Speculator" not only explores Soros's financial ventures but also his complex personal and ideological evolution, highlighting his philosophical and philanthropic engagements later in life.(00:05) The documentary opens with a recount of George Soros earning a billion dollars during the Black Wednesday financial crisis in 1992 when the British government raised interest rates to 15% in a failed attempt to stabilize the pound.(01:43) It highlights George Soros's challenging childhood, born in 1930 to a father who was a prisoner of war during World War I and later taught Soros the art of survival, which proved crucial during the Nazi occupation of Hungary.(04:17) During World War II, the Soros family survived by using false identities and bribing authorities to evade Nazi persecution in Hungary, significantly impacting Soros's understanding of risk and survival strategies.(07:08) The narrative then shifts to Soros's academic journey at the London School of Economics, where he was influenced by philosopher Karl Popper, learning about the imperfection of knowledge and the concept of falsifiability, which shaped his investment strategies.(09:08) The documentary details Soros's early career in finance in London and New York, his struggle as a trader, and the eventual establishment of his Quantum Fund, which capitalized on market discrepancies and made significant profits by speculating on real estate investment trusts and other financial instruments.

Forgive the clickbait title. The episode should probably actually be called "The (Lack of) Problem of Induction" because we primarily cover Popper's refutation of induction in C&R Chapter 8. This episode starts our deep dive into answering the question "What is the difference between a good philosophical explanation and a bad explanation?" To answer that question we go over Karl Popper's "On the Status of Science and of Metaphysics" from his book Conjectures and Refutations Chapter 8. In this chapter Popper first explains why he believes 'there is no such thing as induction' (from page 18 of Logic of Scientific Discovery) by offering his historical and logical refutation of induction. In this episode we go over Popper's refutation of induction in chapter 8 of C&R in detail and then compare it to Tom Mitchell's (of Machine Learning fame) argument of the 'futility of bias free learning.' We show that Mitchell's and Popper's arguments are actually the same argument even though Mitchell argues for the existence of a kind of induction as used in machine learning. Bruce argues that the difference is not a conceptual or theoretical difference but just a difference in use of language and that the two men are actually conceptually fully in agreement. This makes machine learning both a kind of 'induction' (though not the kind Popper refuted) and also gives machine learning an interesting and often missed relationship with critical rationalism. Then Bruce asks the most difficult question of all: "Is there anyone out there in the world other than me that is interested in exploring how to apply Karl Popper's epistemology to machine learning like this?" You can find a copy of Mitchell's text here if you want to check out his argument for the futility of bias free learning for yourself. As I mention in the podcast, I'm shocked Critical Rationalists aren't referencing Mitchell's argument constantly because it is so strongly critical rationalist in nature. But the whole textbook is just like this. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

On a classic edition of Weekend Conversations, Elevate Podcast host Robert Glazer and producer Mick Sloan discuss Karl Popper's falsification principle, a foundation of the scientific method that also has significant implications for leadership and communication. They also dig into how to challenge your own viewpoints and ideas, how leaders can invite contradictory viewpoints, and much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices