Podcasts about Popper

Steve talks about the vibes in New York, the Knicks winning, Mikal Bridges, and more.

Outline 00:00 - Intro 02:10 - London in the 1960s12:40 - From Oxford to Imperial College: David Mayne and the discrete-time Riccati equation 18:05 - The "global tour": Montenegro roads, hitch-hiking to Istanbul, and the San Francisco waterfront 22:30 - Feedback and causality between stochastic processes 31:15 - The system identification years 40:50 - Model complexity, the bias–variance trade-off, and concentration inequalities 52:05 - Adaptive control: living through a golden era 1:00:30 - McGill, George Zames, and CIFAR's "institute without walls," and COCOLOG 1:09:45 - Mean field games: the China connection, the cell-phone problem, and Nash Certainty Equivalence 1:20:15 - The Lasry–Lions simultaneous discovery 1:24:40 - From graphons to graphexons: sparse networks, Laplexions, and geometry 1:31:00 - Linear Stochastic Systems, Popper, and falsifiability 1:35:20 - Advice to young researchers 1:38:00 - OutroLinks Peter Caines' website: https://www.mcgill.ca/cim/caines Linear Stochastic Systems: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/book/10.1137/1.9781611974713  On the discrete-time matrix Riccati equation of optimal control: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207177008931892 Feedback between stationary stochastic processes: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1975.1101008 Prediction-error identification methods for stationary stochastic processes: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1976.1101304 Asymptotic normality of prediction-error estimators for approximate system models: https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.1978.268066 Discrete-time multivariable adaptive control (Axelby Award): https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1980.1102363 Discrete-time stochastic adaptive control: https://doi.org/10.1137/0319052 25 seminal control papers of the 20th century: https://books.google.ca/books/about/Control_Theory.html?id=eVhGAAAAYAAJ COCOLOG: A conditional observer and controller logic for finite machines: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/S0363012992226636 Hierarchical hybrid control systems: https://doi.org/10.1109/9.664153 On the hybrid optimal control problem: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4303244Bode Lecture: https://ieeecss.org/presentation/bode-lecture/mean-field-stochastic-control The cell-phone problem - Large population stochastic wireless power control: https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2003.1272542 Large-population stochastic dynamic games - McKean-Vlasov and the Nash Certainty Equivalence principle: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/communications-in-information-and-systems/volume-6/issue-3/Large-population-stochastic-dynamic-games--closed-loop-McKean-Vlasov/cis/1183728987.full Large-population cost-coupled LQG with nonuniform agents and decentralized ε-Nash equilibria: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2007.904450 Social optima in mean field LQG control: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2012.2183439 ε-Nash mean field games with major and minor agents: https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.5684 Graphon mean field games and their equations: https://doi.org/10.1137/20M136373X Mean field games on large sparse network limits - Laplexion dynamics on graphexons: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240589632500388X Murray Wonham oral history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IBZyRo0vDkSupport the showPodcast infoPodcast website: https://www.incontrolpodcast.com/Apple Podcasts: https://tinyurl.com/5n84j85jSpotify: https://tinyurl.com/4rwztj3cRSS: https://tinyurl.com/yc2fcv4yYoutube: https://tinyurl.com/bdbvhsj6Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/3z24yr43Twitter: https://twitter.com/IncontrolPInstagram: https://tinyurl.com/35cu4kr4Acknowledgments and sponsorsThis episode was supported by the National Centre of Competence in Research on «Dependable, ubiquitous automation» and the IFAC Activity fund. The podcast benefits from the help of an incredibly talented and passionate team. Special thanks to L. Seward, E. Cahard, F. Banis, F. Dörfler, J. Lygeros, ETH studio and mirrorlake . Music was composed by A New Element.

This week The Rocker Chic takes us out to Seaford, New Jersey where for 5 weeks a family was tormented by flying objects and popping bottles. This week is all about The Herman Family and Popper The Poltergeist!!   For those who want to jump ahead, story start at 13:50   www.theunitedstatesofparanormal.com   www.patreon.com/TUSOP   www.goldenmojoent.com   https://feed.podbean.com/theunitedstatesofparanormal/feed.xml   Do you have a haunting, cryptid, or other unexplained you would like us to look into? Do you have your own strange story you'd like us to read in an episode? Email us at TheUnitedStatesOfParanormal@gmail.com or message us on any of our social media platforms.    Listen on Podurama   Follow us on social media to stay up-to-date on episodes and see photos from each episode.  Social media:  - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/The-United-States-of-Paranormal-101722675824225/ - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theunitedstatesofparanormal/ - Twitter: http://twitter.com/TUSOPPod Check out other podcasts within our network: Golden Image Podcast: https://linktr.ee/GoldenImagePodcast Golden 80's: https://linktr.ee/thegoldenimage80s The Call Guys: https://linktr.ee/thecallguyspodcast MurdNerds: https://linktr.ee/murdnerds Seasons in Hell Sports Network::  https://linktr.ee/indianachiefsfans A Court of Books and Booze: https://linktr.ee/acobab Art by Esteban Gomez Reyes https://instagram.com/esteban.gomezr?utm_medium=copy_link Music by Boze Theme voice over by Matthew Frisby Produced by Jeremy Golden  Edited by Jeremy Golden  Hosted by Jeremy Golden, Jennifer Williams and Bobbi Golden   #tusop #theunitedstatesofparanormal l #paranormalpodcast #scary #podcast #paranormalpodcast #paranormal  #ghosts #paranormalactivity #haunted #ghoststories #creepy #paranormalinvestigation  #scarystories  #paranormalinvestigator #ghosthunters #urbanlegends #podcastlife #haunting #paranormalstories  

Dr. Sandra Lee is on Celebrity Jobber with Jeff Zito this week. What type of work would Sandra be doing if not for already being known as "Dr. Pimple Popper", a California-based dermatologist and reality TV star, famous for her TLC show? Many celebrities will tell you that if not for that one lucky break or meeting, they would have been a telemarketer like Jennifer Aniston or working in a video store like Quentin Tarantino. In other words, they may have been just a jobber. Thanks for listening. Please rate, review, and subscribe to the Celebrity Jobber with Jeff Zito wherever you pod.

Jack Story just pulled off one of the most incredible moves in bass fishing tournament history — he skipped his high school graduation to compete in the Phoenix Bass Fishing League All-American Championship and walked across the bass stage as a champion instead.This week's tackle tip of the week: popper fishing. I dive into topwater bass fishing with poppers — when to throw them, which conditions produce the best blowups, and how to trigger explosive strikes from largemouth bass. Whether you're a boat fisherman, kayak fisherman working shallow structure, or a bank fisherman covering water from shore, these popper fishing techniques will put more fish in the boat.If you're looking for bass fishing tips, tournament recaps, and tackle advice you can actually use, hit subscribe. New episodes every weekBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/bass-cast-radio--1838782/support.Become a Patreon memebet now for less then a pack of worms you can support Bass Cast Radio as well as get each epsiode a day early & commercial free. Just click the link below. PATREON 

We're back with another On the Journey episode! We had a fascinating conversation with Living Joyfully Network member Ari Lambie. Ari is a mom of three young children and she spoke with us about her journey. We talked about the philosophy of learning, the fallibilism of humans, creativity, children’s social development as well as their capability, and a lot more. It was a really rich conversation and we hope you find it helpful! Watch the video of our conversation on YouTube. THINGS WE MENTION IN THIS EPISODE We invite you to join us in the Living Joyfully Network, a warm and welcoming online community of like-hearted parents. It's a non-judgmental space where you can steep in these unconventional ideas around parenting, relationships, and learning, and explore what they might look like day-to-day in your uniquely wonderful family. We offer a free month trial so you can see if it's a good fit for you. Click here to join us. Sign up to our mailing list on Substack to receive our email newsletters as well as new articles about learning, parenting, and so much more! Check out our website, livingjoyfully.ca for more information about exploring unschooling and navigating relationships. EPISODE TRANSCRIPT ANNA: Hello everyone, I’m Anna Brown with Living Joyfully, and today I’m joined by my co-host Erika Ellis and Pam Larcchia, as well as our special guest today, Ari Lambie. Hello to you all. Before we get started, I just want to mention the Living Joyfully Network. It’s a lovely place where you can find support at any stage of your journey, and I feel so lucky to get to hang out with so many amazing people from all over the world. If you’d like to join us, we’ll put the link in show notes, and you can also go to our website livingjoyfully.ca, and there’s a link right on the home page. I am so excited that Ari is here with us today. She is one of those amazing members of the Network I was just mentioning, and it’s been so fun getting to know her and her family. She loves to dive into all the nuances, and that is my favorite, so I’m very excited. Ari, just to get us started, can you tell us a little bit about you and your family and what everyone’s interested in right now? ARI: Sure. Well, thanks so much for having me. I’m really grateful to be here. I am Ari, and I’m part of a family of five. We live in Portland, Oregon. My husband, Joaquin, is a critical care doctor, so he spends a lot of time taking care of people and solving challenging problems, but he’s also really fun. He brings a lot of light energy to the house. He likes to cook, which I love. I mean, I don’t love cooking, so I love that he cooks. He also likes to garden and play sports and come up with challenging ideas and concepts that are away from the norm, which is our favorite thing to talk about. We’ve been together for 20 years, and we just love talking about the ideas he comes up with, which makes me think hard and come back with either a new way of thinking or challenging him with a new idea. So, that’s what we spend a lot of time doing when we have time to ourselves. My nine-year-old daughter likes to come in on those conversations sometimes. She really likes figuring out the world, talking about it. She likes to read. One of her interests is unusual animals, particularly marine animals. She’s taught me a ton about all these animals I’ve never heard of. She also likes to bake and do some crafty things. She likes to watch Minecraft videos and hang with friends. She spends a lot of time with her friends. My seven-year-old is just this fantastic person of expression. She loves to draw. She loves to listen to music. She’s teaching herself how to play some music. She loves stories and is really good at telling stories. And she expresses herself with her body, too. She’s really athletic, and she gives the biggest, best hugs that you’ll ever feel. My five-year-old, she’s really into pretend play. We play a lot of games together. She loves to be a pet in a pet store, and I come and have to buy her because she’s the most special pet in the store. Or we’ll play that we’re both shape-shifting dragons, and we have to defend against the other dragons. So that’s kind of her jam. She also likes to cook, and she’s really into numbers right now. She’s always figuring out how they go together, how they count up. So that’s been fun to play with her, too. We all like to move. We’re all pretty physical. One of our favorite games is tag. When we go to the park, we will almost inevitably end up playing some form of freeze tag. We’ve invented lots of different games of freeze tag. Me, I like to move outdoors. Hiking is probably one of my favorite hobbies right now. I also like to journal, and craft, and do art here and there. I spend most of my time hanging out with my kids and figuring out life. I’m loving it. It’s so nice. PAM: It’s so great to hear about everybody. I feel like we say this every time, but it’s just so fun to hear the different kinds of expressions of each person, yet as you’re listening, you can see how they weave together. Like you were even saying, oh she likes to join in cooking. This one likes to join in on conversations. There’s so many pieces. What I always love is just how it’s a beautiful expression of the idea of a family of individuals. How we can all be living together and being ourselves. Like you said, you’re very busy with parenting and figuring all those pieces out, and also you have the things that you enjoy doing, and that you notice you enjoy doing, and bringing those where they weave in to all the different pieces. So, I just, I love unschooling families. ERIKA: I love that too, and yeah, it’s just making me think about, people are different, and how when we have these different individuals in our families, how we learn from each other, and I think initially when I went into parenting, I was thinking they’ll be a lot like me, and they’ll just learn from me kind of thing. I didn’t realize quite how much interconnected learning there would be, just because we’re all so different. I didn’t realize how different they could be, and I think, each child you add is just a whole new layer of learning for everyone in the family. So, I love that for sure. PAM: I think for me, that’s been one of the big shifts, was recognizing the individuals, right? As a family, we’re going to do this, and as a family, we’re going to do that, and then recognizing that legitimately doesn’t work for some of us, and that was kind of an eye-opening moment. Okay, so the next question. We are very interested to hear a bit more about how you discovered unschooling, and what ideas and people have influenced you so far along the way, because, you know, the journey keeps going, doesn’t it? ARI: Yeah, I don’t think it’ll ever end. So, my interest in unschooling started about four years ago, when I read a book by a physicist named David Deutsch. He talked about a lot of physics concepts that are beyond me, but he also talks about this philosophy or understanding of knowledge, and how knowledge grows, and it really shook up my understanding, but made it clearer to me what I believed, it made it make more sense. And he draws a lot on a 20th century philosopher, Karl Popper, who coined the term, the bucket mind theory, I guess it is. So, thinking about the mind as a bucket, where you pour knowledge in, which is wrong, but it’s how a lot of us think about how knowledge is passed from one person to another. It’s just this receiving process, where someone tells you information, and you receive it, but Deutsch and Popper challenge this and say, learning is actually a creative process. And it happens when we have a conflict in our mind, two things that are incompatible, as simple as a desire. I want this, and I don’t have it yet, or I want to understand this, and I don’t yet, and then what we do in our mind is we come up with ideas that can reconcile the conflict, or solve the conflict, and we use our knowledge to criticize all the ideas we come up with. A lot of this is subconscious, but we’re criticizing our ideas, and picking the one that is the best explanation, and then we try it out, and then we see how the world responds, and we learn more information. This idea just made so much sense to me. They apply it to a larger scale, how humans as a species gain knowledge, and how science advances, but it also applies to the individual, so that really got me thinking. I realized that school is so much based on the bucket theory of pouring knowledge in, and it doesn’t really allow for as much of this creative trying, or see your ideas are as valid as anybody’s, let’s hear more about them, so that was a big knock against school for me. Deutsch also talks about the fallibilism of humans, that we’re just, most of our ideas are wrong. We don’t know anything for sure, and school sends the message, at least I got the message in school, that we’re telling you information, this is how it is, and it’s not going to change, we’re the authority here. I think that’s a real disservice, because the truth is that knowledge is always changing, the truth is, these are our best explanations right now, but in the future, we’ll probably prove most of this wrong. And so I think it’s dangerous to tell kids, this is how it is, don’t think that it could be different So, you combine these ideas of creativity, that learning is about creativity, and that our ideas are always coming up with better explanations, replacing things, and it shows the big problem with ever forcing a person to think a certain way, or to do a certain thing, because even when you think you’re telling somebody to do something because it’s in their best interest, you’re probably wrong. We just don’t know enough about the world, or about that particular person, and then you’re also taking away their ability to come up with their own ideas, and test them out. That’s how they’re going to learn about their interfacing with the world, and how they want to be, and the best understanding that they can come to. You stunt human progress, because you’re limiting ideas, new ideas for us to test out. Those were all big epiphanies for me, this new way of thinking, and I was like okay, so we should avoid forcing people as much as possible. It changed my view on society really. But I still wasn’t sure that it could apply to children. I had a five-year-old, a three-year-old, and a baby at the time, and I was telling them what to do a lot, and so I was like how do you apply this to, does this even apply to children. So, I did some research, and I was like yes, people are doing this. Kids are full humans, they can be seen as creative knowledge growers as much as anybody, in fact they’re more creative, because they haven’t learned to criticize as much. I found John Holt, I found Peter Gray, I found you all, I found the term unschooling, and I was like wow, this is possible. So, I talked with the family, presented it to my oldest, who was in kindergarten at the time, and our life was not as interesting as it was before they started preschool and kindergarten, I was not feeling, I don’t know, not as full myself, schlepping them places, and just dealing with the, let’s get to places on time energy. My oldest was starting to get a little bored with her experience in kindergarten, and she was all for staying home and continuing to play, so that’s when we started. ANNA: All right, see, this is exciting though, because I think it’s so interesting, that idea that he was talking about, and that you were looking into that, how it really does systematically shut down that creative mind, that critical thinking mind. What a disservice, it really is. That’s why it’s so hard for me when, and I know it feels to people like such a radical concept, but I just think, oh my gosh, how does it not make sense, you can see it happening, and I think it’s just so fascinating. I love that this idea was related to adults. And still I think for many people it’s that resistance, but can it be for kids? I see that with so many interesting people that are putting interesting ideas out in the world, and so often are not applying to children, and I just think, whoa, you’re really missing the boat, one, because kids have so much to teach us, and they bring such creativity to things, but I just think, wow, you are missing that the ideas definitely apply to kids. That was very interesting, thank you. PAM: The part that really bubbled up for me, that connected, because I feel like that’s something that I learned so strongly at school, that still gets in my way, so yeah, maybe it might be partly personality-based, but the idea of having the right answer first before acting. That is something I learned watching my kids, but still, it’s so ingrained. I have to literally remember, and which is why I talk pretty often, and I don’t know if we’ve shared it yet, the Baby Steps episode from the Living Joyfully Podcast, but Baby Steps have become a mantra for me to remind myself to think, just as you were describing, what’s my best interpretation or thought or idea about this thing that I am feeling a push with? And go try it, and see what I learned, because I’ll learn more by trying it, more that I can take back, rather than just intellectually trying to solve it completely to the end, before I ever actually take it out in the world and see what it looks like. So, I’ve spent all that time trying to figure it out, versus experimenting. I think maybe it looks like this, boom, go try it, learn some more, come back and, ooh, I’m going to tweak it a little bit more from what I learned, how things unfolded in that moment, and I’m going to take that idea out into the world and test it, that just makes so much sense. It is how I saw, even though my kids were in school for a handful of years before they came home, but yeah, that period was just, like, releasing the crud, right. The crud that they had been absorbing, so their own kind of de-schooling, but mistakes still were not yet this huge, horrible thing to them. They didn't even see them as mistakes, they just said, oh, that didn’t work as I expected, let me bring that information, tweak it, and try it a little bit differently next time, or two minutes from now when I want to keep pushing down this path. For me to recognize that mistakes aren’t literally bad, they’re just more learning, they’re just more context to the situation that I’m pulling in, And that, to me, that’s where the creativity lies, because the more little bits of information I have, or if we think about learning as a web, the more little connections I’ve got, the more creative I can be, because I have more pieces to play with, to bring together. It reminds me, you were talking about the discussions you and your husband love to have about very interesting things, it’s like, oh, let’s pull it apart this way, what if we look at it this way, what if we go way over here, and what would that look like, let’s go try it, or even if it’s a mind experiment. It’s just so fun and creative, and that’s what learning is, versus the, oh my gosh, here’s the bucket, take the fire hose, all the stuff you’re supposed to memorize and implement, because it’s the right way. Anyway, yes, so fun. ERIKA: I feel like I’m going to be thinking about some of these for a while, it’s very interesting, and kind of a unique path to get to unschooling. I don’t know if I’ve heard this exact story before, which is really fun. It was making me think, that idea of, you’re probably wrong, it could be a really good one to kind of play around with, because that’s so not what we learned growing up. It was, there’s one answer, that’s what the fact is. Then I was thinking back, and I remember in school, learning in science or something, we would learn something that people used to believe, like spontaneous generation, or something, where now we think how could they have been so clueless? I remember having the thought at that time, so what about now, don’t you think people in the future are going to be like, how could they have been so clueless back then? So, I had that thought, but then you don’t really have a chance to play around with that. Everything is taught as facts now, and I just remember being, like, how will we know which ones of these are completely wrong, that we’re learning right now? And so it is really interesting, and I think maybe approaching my kids with the idea that I’m probably wrong about what I think I know about whatever it is, I think that could be helpful. It might also make it more challenging to know what to say sometimes. I think I grew up in that environment of, you listen to the person, and they know what’s true, and that’s it. It feels super expansive to kind of shift that. ARI: Yeah, I love all that. I think the way we try to come at our kids is not with that authority of, we know what’s best, but we have some ideas. We have stories that we’ve experienced, and we try to look at our kids. Are they interested in hearing from us about this topic? And when you were talking, Pam, I was thinking about how the internal versus external processor, how maybe you go try things out, and that’s how you test ideas and criticize them and come up with better ones. A lot of people like to process them against the knowledge they have in their head or maybe go read about stuff. I love how you all talk about these different kinds of processing. Some people want to talk to other people. The problem with the mindset that we learn in school is that talking to another person means asking an authority for the answer when it could mean let’s bounce some ideas around, like, what do you think of my ideas? Tell me your ideas. Let’s come up with what’s the best one to try, you know? PAM: Yeah, or cheating, right? Then don’t talk to them about it. It does very much say you have to learn it all, and you have to regurgitate it this way. Just imagine external processors. You can’t talk to the teacher. You can’t talk to the other students in the classroom, and do you have a lot of time for processing outside of the school hours? That was something that surprised me when my kids first came home, because we went from very scheduled and busy and stuff, right, and I thought, oh, well, we’re not going to school anymore. We have all this time to do other things, but then to realize that, they’re like, no, thank you. No, thank you. They spend so much more time just processing and engaging in what they were interested in, much more than I was kind of expecting. I thought, oh, I’m going to have to keep them busy, and that too is personality-based. Some people like to, but that’s the difference. Even when we went to, say, the Science Center, seeing the difference between how they moved through exhibits and just the whole environment versus how the school kids in the exhibit right beside us were moving through it. They had no control, no agency over that pace, and they didn’t even get to choose what they were trying to process because they had the little worksheet that said, at this exhibit, when you do X, what happens. There was no time then to be creative with what is actually catching your attention. What would you like to focus on versus, what somebody else, authority, is telling you. These are the important bits that you need to be picking out of that, right? ANNA: Right, which I think makes you question things too, if you’re picking up different things than what the authority is picking up. I think a piece of my journey that’s related to this is, just kind of toying with the whole subjective reality piece, which I think was really the foundation for my understanding of how different people are. I do a lot of internal thinking about all the things, and that was really it for me. Oh, things that feel like a fact, we are experiencing differently. So there was this nuance to the fact. The fact is that it’s 40 degrees outside. I’m cold, someone else is hot. Okay, so we have a fact, but we have how we’re interacting with that fact. A dramatic example of one nation’s terrorist is another nation’s hero. There’s a fact of what happened, but the interpretation of the fact is so subjective, and so it was just this idea of, wow, we are experiencing the very same things very differently because we’re all so different. That just really changed so many things about the way I related to my kids, related to the people in my life. Then we’ve just built on that as we’ve talked about relationships, but I think it’s all related. And I think school really stifles that understanding because it’s trying to put everything in a very neat box. And again, I think it can make kids kind of doubt themselves too, because they’re seeing different things that are just as important, but that aren’t being highlighted on the worksheet. ERIKA: I think the younger kids, especially, like, when you’re describing being able to talk things through and that everyone’s ideas have value. I feel like it gets more like that when you get into college and beyond where people actually want to talk and professors want to hash things out. I mean, not everyone, but some. But younger kids, you’re not ready for it. You know, you need me to dump all this information into your bucket because you don’t know anything yet. And so I think that’s so interesting that if we question that, kids have so many ideas and are so open to that. ARI: Simply the idea that they might know what they want. They’re having this subjective experience and they have unique wants. But no, we want to take them to this class and this activity and they shouldn’t be watching this TV. There’s just this idea that we know better what they want. PAM: Right. We don’t trust. Like you said, we just can’t know. We can’t. And I think that’s why when we talk so often about this de-schooling phase of the journey, how so much of it we recognize quickly enough is our work to do. Because we are questioning some of these more basic ideas and then playing with them and seeing how they unfold. Here’s the school’s conventional ideas and here’s, for lack of a better phrase, unschooling’s unconventional ideas. And it’s not about just taking those on wholesale as your new set of rules to follow, et cetera. Because then you don’t get that richness. You don’t get that understanding. You’re not playing around with them to see how they make sense for you. But to take this, like you were saying, that makes sense to me. Does this apply to children? And then looking to your children and playing around with some of those ideas and then seeing how they actually unfold is how you learn how capable kids really are and how they can have an idea of subjectively what they want this experience to be. Notice that it’s different from the experience we were kind of hoping they were going to have. But letting it play out and seeing, oh, look how super valuable that was for them, for who they are as that unique human being versus, yeah, sure, I could have said, oh, no, but do it this way, but do it this way. And they would have taken that in, but they would have taken it as my interpretation. And then, yes, you get into all the, oh, does that mean I’m wrong? Does that mean I can’t think through this properly? I should be thinking about it and seeing and being interested in what they think, et cetera. So there’s all that piece that comes along when they didn’t get to play around with the one thing that they were super interested in about it all. ERIKA: The next question we had is how you have shared on the network about how trust has been harder to find related to your children’s social development more than physical or intellectual development. I was hoping you could share a little bit about that journey and what has helped you in that area. ARI: Yeah, it’s been really interesting to watch in myself how I have no qualms about the kids climbing up structures and maybe taking a tumble, playing sports and making mistakes. I see that as part of their physical development. And with intellectual, academic stuff, it was pretty easy for me to make the paradigm shift of if they follow their interests and their problem solving, they’re going to be able to lead their way here. But when it came to social stuff, the moment my kid said something mean on the playground and I’m worried what the other kid is going to think, I immediately tense up and rush to intervene. Even if my kids like making a suggestion for a game to a stranger on the playground, I feel myself, oh no, what if, I don’t know if she asked it in the right way. What if the other kid says no and I’m so untrusting of their social exploration, it’s been really interesting. And so with all of your help, I’ve been exploring why that is and where I can go with it. I think that the social stuff has always been really hard for me, or the hardest part for me. And so, in a way, I wish I had more help with it. And so I want to help my kids. And this is how I know how to help is to jump in and tell them what to do. I also think that in our society, and I’ve noticed it, in particular in the homeschool spheres, there’s this real desire for everyone to play nice. I think even families keep their kids out of school to avoid bullying and terrible behavior, which is legitimate. But then it makes these expectations in the play spaces of, we don’t accept certain behaviors. And so we have less tolerance of their developmental journey in this social stuff. They’re supposed to know how to act now, which I think is really interesting. And so I feel that social pressure. And then the third piece, I think, is that I feel like my impact on the world, my desire to bring certain energy, certain positivity to the world is intertwined with how my kids act, how my kids are in the world. And so if they do something socially that I don’t like, if they do something that might hurt someone, or behave in a way that is not how I would carry myself, then I think that’s a problem, because I am too connected. So there are those three pieces that I’ve tried to work through. I think the first one, as far as me wanting to intervene, because social stuff is hard for me, I’ve unpacked as like, would little Ari have wanted more instructions, more judgment, telling me how to act? Or would I have wanted curiosity and more questions like, what’s going on for you? Compassion, trying to understand what’s going on. And an acknowledgement that we don’t know the right way, there’s no right way to act, right? Language like, this is not okay, or we don’t do that. That doesn’t fit in my sphere anymore. It’s more about, what was this experience? And do you want to process it with me? That’s the energy I would like to bring to my kids. It’s still a struggle. I get triggered all the time. But I try to think back on what would have helped me and looking into my kids eyes, what is going to be helpful for them now? Is it judgment? Is it instruction? Or is it this openness and acknowledgement that you’re on a journey and you don’t have to get it right now. First of all, there is no right, but also, it’s just a long learning process. And then with the social expectations, I’ve tried to surround myself with people who are interested in trusting their kids more. And I found some beautiful people. And that’s been helpful. I acknowledge that we don’t want our kids to be hurt. So we still want to talk to our kids about and inform them if somebody else is being impacted by their behavior. I try to just have a lot of conversations without judgment around that. And I think helping our kids through difficult social situations by being okay. Helping our kids know that hurt is going to happen and that I’m here for you and what do we want to do about it? Instead of mom should have prevented that. I think there’s just so much more nuance to their social development than kids should have these instructions of how to treat other people. Because social interactions are really complicated. And then, my biggest aha, I think, has been untangling my impact from my kids’ impact. I think there’s a story that I have. And I think a lot of people believe that our kids are part of our way of making the world a better place. We’re raising our kids to be good people so that the world can be a better place. And the moment, this statement came into my head that my children are not my agents to make the world a better place. It’s like, whoa, that’s me. That’s about my actions. And they are full people. And I am here to support them in becoming who they are. That has been a really helpful aha moment for me. ANNA: Yeah, that one’s huge. And I think that is interesting, because I think we do often put things on children that are really ours to carry. It is okay for me to say I want to be this change agent myself, but this idea that our kids can do that is super interesting. But something when you were talking earlier to just the idea of, we tend to focus so intently on behaviors that we really do miss those nuances of needs that are happening underneath of that. And so when we’re solely focused on, even just the labeling of bullying behavior, it’s like, oh, there’s so much underneath of that. Now, granted, in a school environment, they don’t have the tools or the time or the people that can work with that. So, I totally get wanting to get kids out of an environment like that that doesn’t feel safe. But when we have engaged parents with kids, we’re able to dig under that to see, oh, is this actually not a good environment? Have we not eaten? Is there something else going on? We can look at all these pieces. And when we’re having that kind of conversation with our kids, they’re actually learning about their own triggers, like, okay, I don’t do well in large crowds, or I need to eat before we do something, or I can only last two hours. That’s so much more productive for everyone, for the family and the group as a whole. But for the individual to have the space to learn about themselves in that way, when they’re young, is so valuable. I also feel for you because I’ve been there feeling that like, oh, that’s not what I would say. That’s not how I would have handled that. And I love just being able to help myself, find that compassion for the person and really see them and have really seen so many people just kind of melt under that and just feel really held. And have a real learning opportunity of what was happening for them in that moment. There were just so many interesting things about that. PAM: So many. I mean, it really is the piece, maybe I’m reiterating again, but that piece of how much they’re learning about themselves, having the space to process that, spaces in that doesn’t mean literally leaving them alone, because that’s what we feel we’re supposed to do or anything. We have the conversations and they’re like, I don’t want you to come jumping in if you see, I want to try this, this and this. But you’ve made that plan beforehand. This is an experiment that you’re running. This is how you’re trying and how you’re going to learn more about all the pieces. Because like you were saying, there’s just so much context to every moment. Maybe one park day, everything goes fine, there are no big blow ups or anything. And, the next one, there’s clashes. And to be able to chat more about the context of those moments. And if you don’t have as much of a chatter, we’re still observing. I think that was one of the things too, so often was seeing that, like you talked about finding a group of engaged parents, Ari. And I think that makes a huge difference because so often it was the parents all off in one area and then the kids just off on their own. And I was often one of the only parents who would hang out with the kids. They’re fun. But because we saw what was going on, we could have meaningful conversations after about it. When they did this, how are you feeling? Or we have enough information and context to have meaningful conversations to process through which they can learn. I was really hungry or I was frustrated because like three interactions ago, something happened that I was stewing about that came with me. So my cup was almost full. And this one little thing which I could have moved through 90 percent of the time just kind of filled me up and I exploded because of that. Those are all such valuable pieces to learn about ourselves. And for them to learn about us, like moving forward that they can bring that you can then prep for it. Like you were saying, eating before you go, noticing the time and maybe even having like a code word for when it’s time. There were times when I’m like, we’ll totally just blame this all on me or whatever. Like I’ll come up and say, oh, we have to go, we have to go. And we’ll have prearranged it before that, that they’re going to want to go at this point. Or if we see something happen, but then I am able to just pull them out of it. We are just learning so much every time we just try something out and see it takes us right back to where you started. I try something out and see how it unfolds and what do we learn from it? And yes, it applies here too. But yeah, socially, that can be a hard place to take these ideas or a more challenging place to take these ideas. Because there are so many social roles. And like you said, you kind of have to find the people who are also willing to engage with social situations in the same kind of way. ERIKA: It is so interesting. I think it’s just an area that triggers us, because of our own experiences and how you’re describing that social life was hard for you. Then that’s so triggering. I have the same experience with my kids. I don’t want them to lose their friends. I want them to be accepted and I want them to not be rejected. And there are these very kind of almost scary feelings that can come up for me. It feels very urgent that this go well. And I just hope that they say the right thing. It’s a panicky feeling that can come up for me. But just like everything else, there’s no one right way, which you mentioned, which I think is so huge. That doesn’t even seem possibly true at the beginning. But then it’s like, well, of course, there’s not one right way to behave socially. And that it requires learning like anything else in life. And so just being open to it, they’re going to try things and see how it turns out. And that’s just how humans learn. And that’s okay. That’s safe. It's been really interesting to sit with the reality of that. My oldest does a lot of processing of social things with me. That has been very enjoyable to have things occur and him to notice things he didn’t the first time, after our discussion. So he’ll be like, so and so is really making me mad right now, he’s furious. And I’m like, oh, my gosh, what’s going on? But then he’ll bring things up. I think he probably didn’t sleep well, you know, just the context pieces or we don’t know. Maybe I could provide information. His mom’s been out of town all week or just different things. There are things that go on with people, maybe it’s hormones. And so we’ve talked about hormones and maybe it’s all these different things. And so just kind of giving everyone more space, I guess, to make mistakes socially and that to be like, and we’re still okay. And we can make repairs. It’s such a different feeling and story than I had when I was growing up. I feel like the validation I got from my mom was kind of like, that’s a mean person. It wasn’t about, I wonder what’s going on with them. It was more, no one should talk to you like that. They must be a mean person kind of feeling. Maybe she didn’t use those words, but that was what I internalized about it. So, yeah, I totally appreciate that this area is so hard sometimes. I really enjoy hearing you process about it and just opening up to, there’s no one right way, even here. ANNA: Yeah. Something you said too, that I think a lot of us deal with is we take our childhood experiences and I mean, of course, because they’re a part of us, right? And so they become these triggers in these situations with our kids. But I think it’s so important to remember how different the environment is for our kids. You are there to have those conversations and those nuanced pieces. And it is so different. And almost the stakes, while they still feel high, I know what you’re saying, Erika, they are lower. In the sense of my experience of school was just me having to go to this place and figure it all out on my own. I had a close relationship with my mom, but she didn’t know anything about school or the politics of school or what was happening at school. And so I didn’t even bring that to her. I think it’s so different when we’re with our kids more in this weaving in and out of our lives day to day, where they just have that space to talk about their feelings and what’s happening with it. And even if they’re not kids that share every little bit, there’s just some different nuances there related to how we support our kids. So it’s always important for me to remember, that was my experience. And it was so hard because I didn’t have the support. But I guess that’s what I liked about what you said, too, Ari, asking what would I have wanted? Would I really have wanted somebody to jump in and tell me what to do? Or would I have wanted this nonjudgmental space with somebody to help me figure it out for myself? I thought that was really interesting. ARI: I think it’s one of the most rewarding parts of parenting in this way that our kids come to us to process. Like you were describing, Erika, when they just see a moment and they know that it’s always an opportunity to process with mom or anybody here. It’s just a beautifully different environment. PAM: It just reminds me of, I always remember the drive home from Girl Guides meetings. That was always a big processing time. But what stood out for me often was just like you were saying, Erika. It’s like, oh, so-and-so seemed like really out of sorts today or whatever, whatever. And she would be explaining to me, yeah, because X, because Y. Where I feel this defensive mama bear come up. But I got to the space where I could just recognize that in me. Doesn’t make it wrong either, right? Nothing, it’s not wrong, wrong. It’s just recognizing that experience. And then when I just put a little sentence out there, I get the whole context and the understanding. And I was like, oh, yeah. That’s the human being I want to be. ANNA: Whoa, right? It’s not getting defensive. Being able to see other people’s experience. And also, just be able to make that repair if it's needed. Or be open to repair if something’s happened to us. I think it’s a big difference. And it’s a learning process, right? It’s not perfect for any of us at any age. And so this expectation that kids are going to be perfect doesn’t make sense, but it’s creating that environment where that’s possible. And I feel like even, Ari, some of the stuff you’ve talked about on the network, you’ve seen changes in them as they’ve had this freedom. Especially your oldest to really be understood in some of the ways that she was approaching situations. So I think that was really cool. ARI: Absolutely. ANNA: Well, thank you so much. This was a lot of fun and I just really, really enjoyed it. And we hope everybody enjoyed our conversation, maybe had a little aha moment or picked up on some ideas to consider for your own personal journey. And of course, if you enjoy these conversations and want to come hang out with us, we’d love to have you join us at the Living Joyfully Network. It is really such an amazing group of people connecting and having thoughtful conversations about all the things that we encounter in life, our own and our kids and all the things. So we invite you to check it out and see if it fits with our free month offer. And you’ll find the link in the show notes or you can go to livingjoyfully.ca and the link is on the homepage. But thank you so much again for joining us. It was just really great to hang out with you all. ARI: Thank you for having me. PAM: Thank you, Ari. ERIKA: Thank you so much, Ari.

La función principal de la inteligencia es resolver problemas, aunque con demasiada frecuencia lo que hace es crearlos. Encontrar soluciones es una necesidad de todos los seres vivos. All life is a problem solving, escribió Popper. Cada órgano -los ojos, el estómago, el corazón, el cerebro- es una solución. Los seres vivos tienen que mantener la homeostasis, adaptarse al entorno, reproducirse. Los seres humanos hemosampliado el ámbito de lo problemático, porque añadimos alos problemas reales los problemas imaginados. Como decía en el podcast anterior, pregunta y problema sondos momentos de un mismo proceso. Preguntar es la actividad de dirigirse a alguien -o a uno mismo- pidiendo información. La pregunta o el problema son lo buscado, lo que dirige la búsqueda. También lo hace el proyecto, que anticipa el futuro. Solución o respuesta señalan el fin de la búsqueda. Son actividades consumatorias. Es evidente que la pregunta, el planteamiento del problema o el proyecto dinamizanla inteligencia, la obligan a trabajar. Su contrario es la “inteligencia inerte”, que no moviliza sus recursos, que se limita a repetir. Ni la pregunta, ni el problema, ni el proyecto son la culminación de la inteligencia.  Son solo medios para buscar soluciones. Abogo por una teoría de la “inteligencia resuelta”, de la que marcha con resolución y proporciona soluciones. Resolver un problema no es solo una tarea cognitiva. Hace falta valentía, tenacidad, capacidad de soportar el esfuerzo. Gracián decía que Velázquez pintaba “a lo valentón”, lanzándose al lienzo como un espadachín hacia el adversario. Es el mismo Gracián que escribió: “De nada vale que el entendimiento se adelante, si el corazón se queda”. La “inteligencia resuelta” ha de aunar ambas facultades. Las velas están desplegadas. Comienza la navegación. Atribuciones:“Erik Satie Gymnopedie No.1” – EddieHonch“Albinoni Adagio” – EdRecords“Schubert - Serenade” – PremiumBeatEntradilla y cierre: “The Comedy” de plaincaskMúsica de fondo: “Spy Jazz” de PremiumBeat

CarneyShow 06.02.26 Dr. Pimple Popper, Jim Fiala, Dan Moren, George Mahe, Frank Cusumano by

Dr. Pimple Popper joined us to talk about the new episodes of her show. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

   SHOW NOTES Dr. Sandra Lee, known globally as Dr. Pimple Popper, joins Linda Mitchell on the Sisterhood of S.W.E.A.T. to discuss purpose, confidence, entrepreneurship, social media success, leadership, and helping people transform their lives. Topics include: • Building a billion-view platform from an unexpected specialty • Turning passion into impact • Confidence and healing • Entrepreneurship and leadership • Season 2 of Dr. Pimple Popper: Breaking Out • Mentoring future doctors • Social media growth and influence • Reinvention and purpose  keywords Dermatology, Social Media, Personal Branding, Success, Authenticity, Healing, Confidence, Medical Career, Media, Inspiration  key  topics Journey from dermatologist to media sensation The importance of authenticity and staying true to oneself Balancing physical and emotional healing in dermatology Overcoming personal health challenges publicly Lessons for turning niche skills into impactful careers  guest  name Dr. Sandra Lee Titles From Practice to Fame: The Dr. Pimple Popper Story How Authenticity Built a Global Brand in Dermatology  sound bites "We've had over a hundred episodes now, it's crazy." "Stay true to yourself and do good." "I just want to make people happier and feel better." Chapters 00:00 The Unexpected Journey of Dr. Pimple Popper 02:19 Staying True to Yourself 05:30 The Emotional Connection in Dermatology 08:13 Facing Personal Challenges 09:53 Legacy and Impact  resources Dr. Sandra Lee (Dr. Pimple Popper) Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/drpimplepopper/ Dermatology Success Stories - https://www.aad.org/public/diseases/a-z/dermatology-success-stories  guest links Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/drpimplepopper/  

DR. SANDRA LEE CALLS IN AND CHATS ABOUT ANOTHER SEASON OF DR PIMPLE POPPER.

A trio of middle schoolers deliver impressive solo performances of Bach, Popper, and Saint-Saens with host Peter Dugan. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Jon and Austin kick things off by trying Jalapeño Popper snack sticks made by a Walton's salesman, testing if a flavor profile like this (without a dedicated snack stick seasoning) can still be turned into a great snack stick. They also celebrate Patrick's win at correctly guessing a lineup of different seasonings... mostly. The guys get into the idea of “pickle season” and all the ways that flavor can show up in meat snacks, and wrap things up with a wild clip of a beaver attacking eight people, bringing the usual mix of meat talk and unexpected chaos.

Ad hoc saves and immunizing stratagems are phrases Karl Popper used to describe moves humans make when we try to protect our theories from refutation. We all do this every day in one way or another.But immunizing stratagems hurts theories in that this move makes our ideas overall less convincing to other people. Marxism and psychoanalysis are the classic areas where Popper saw true believers bend over backward to save these theories from refutation from the real world. This was the main topic of The Myth of the Closed Mind by Ray Scott Percival, who we interviewed a few episodes ago. So when ideas come into contact with human minds, theories or memes that move us closer to truth have a survival advantage. So as flawed as we are, humans—all humans—cannot help but seek truth, fallibly of course. Bruce reads a lot from Ray's book on this episode, especially from chapter 4, “Ideologies as Shapeshifters.” Please consider ordering Ray's excellent book, which is also available on Audible. https://amzn.to/4tF1UXx

In this episode, Andre interviews the new Associate GM of SDSU Football, Sam Popper.

Turning on our own! Vaden sits down with Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen to discuss some of the bad memes that run rampant in the online "crit-rat" community, in an attempt of some intra-tribal error-correction. Ben, scared of the retribution, runs away with his tail uncomfortably close to his thighs. Follow Bruce and Peter's work on the Theory of Anything Podcast. Sign up for the Theory of Anything podcast Patreon here, and Check out Peter's Many World of David Deutsch facebook group here. We discuss Bruce and Peter's origin stories Anarcho-capitalism and its (pseudo) connections to Popperian philosophy CritRat disbelief in mental illness What does the Universal Explainer hypothesis imply about mental illness and IQ? Is Anarcho-capitalism a foundationalist and utopian philosophy? Why are so many crit-rats Trump supporters? See Also Theory of Anything Podcast #136: Michael Golding on Mental Illness Theory of Anything Podcast #82: Popper's Ratchet Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @bnielson01 Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube I before E except after B? Send your best guess as to the spelling of Bruce's last name (no one knows) over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Special Guest: Bruce Nielson.

Por que a Ciência não é o que você aprendeu na escola? Alan F Chalmers - O que é ciência afinal?Hoje falaremos de um manuscrito que descortina os bastidores do método científico, a obra é de Alan F Chalmers - (O que é ciência afinal?). Este pequeno grande livro oferece uma introdução polemista às principais correntes da filosofia da ciência e seus métodos. O autor inicia já com uma refutação contundente ao pobre indutivismo ingênuo que, depois, se sofistica no método de Francis Bacon, demonstrando que a ciência não pode ser um acúmulo neutro de fatos, afinal toda observação é influenciada por pressupostos teóricos e carece de uma base lógica absoluta (ou algo próximo disso). Para superar essas falhas, o texto apresenta o glorificado falsificacionismo de Popper, que define o conhecimento científico pela sua capacidade de ser testado e contestado. No entanto, a análise se expande para estruturas mais complexas, discutindo os problemas do próprio falsificacionismo, os programas de pesquisa de Lakatos e os paradigmas de Thomas Kuhn, que inserem o contexto histórico e social na evolução do conhecimento humano. Por fim, Chalmers explora o debate entre realismo e instrumentalismo, concluindo que a ciência é uma prática em constante transformação e carece de abordagem objetivista, como se vê na construção de uma grande catedral, pois que o conhecimento não é domínio de um único sujeito, mas um empreendimento coletivo. Este é um resumo completo da obra, com um bônus - a tentativa de um retorno à originalidade Aristotélica, o que, apesar disso, não substitui, evidentemente, a leitura paciente da obra escrita. Quer Ajudar o canal? Veja como:*Link do meu Livro: https://amzn.to/4dbsdhK*Pix: https://widget.livepix.gg/embed/e47d6b80-f832-4fc2-a6af-ee6fa4c9ad9a*Apoie o Canal: https://apoia.se/canaldosocran

Bruce has made a controversial claim on this show: today's "CritRats" (Critical Rationalists on X) have drifted from what Popper intended. And surprisingly, some of the drift traces back to David Deutsch's reinterpretation of Popper in an attempt to solve real problems with Popper's original epistemology.In this episode, Bruce unpacks exactly how — tracing the key points where Deutsch and Popper diverge: verisimilitude, demarcation, testability vs. criticism, and what "refutation" actually meant to Popper (hint: not what you think). A sympathetic but rigorous look at where "Deutschianism" improves on "Popperianism" and where it quietly smuggles in new problems.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Jacob Stegenga is a Professor of Philosophy at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Most of his research has been in general philosophy of science and philosophy of medicine, though he has worked on a wide range of other topics, including stereotypes, just war theory, and science in a time of crisis. His latest book is Heart of Science: A Philosophy of Scientific Inquiry. In this episode, we focus on Heart of Science. We discuss what scientific inquiry is, the aim of science, and the concepts of common knowledge, scientific consensus, and justification. We talk about an approach to science focused on justification and not aims, factive approaches to science, and good scientific testimony. We discuss the demarcation problem, and Popper's approach to it. We talk about whether people should trust science, we explore the example of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we discuss whether “fast science” is justified. We discuss whether science can be value-free. We talk about what scientific progress is, and credit allocation in science. Finally, we discuss whether there are “timeless truths” in science.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, HEDIN BRØNNER, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, HUGO B., JORDAN MANSFIELD, CHARLOTTE ALLEN, PETER STOYKO, DAVID TONNER, LEE BECK, PATRICK DALTON-HOLMES, NICK KRASNEY, RACHEL ZAK, DENNIS XAVIER, CHINMAYA BHAT, RHYS, ALEX MACLEOD, HAIDAR, JULIEN PORCHER, ROBERT SUNDSTRÖM, AND JON STEWART!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, PER KRAULIS, ADAM HUNT, ANTHONY DI LORENZO, AND JOÃO BARBOSA!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER,SERGIU CODREANU, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Dr. Sandra Lee and Dr. Dubrow recount their stroke experiences and the symptoms they almost ignored. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Caroline & Jobst im Gespräch mit John. Wir reden über Sammeln, ein geklautes Transcend-Shirt im Zoro, es mit Zann übertrieben haben, Beastie Boys & Sex Pistols Platten geborgt, über den Cousin Kontakt zu den Ostpunk-Bands, das Hinterfragen von Autoritäten, Provokation mit dem Beatles-Namen, Stasi-Vermutungen, Antje vom NDR, extreme Angst vor Armee & Militär, nie das Image einer Band angenommen haben, mitm gepimpten Fahrrad mit Mopedreifen über die LPG-Felder, Quelle-Agenturen, Nazi-Agriffe während der Baseballschlägerjahre, alle Subkulturen zusammen, Sick of it All im Zoro, Nazi-Alarm während Born Against & Ambush, Feeling B in Ebersbrunn, eine Viertel-Stunde Sirene bei Sandow, ein Problem mit Labels haben, versteckter Klarer, einfache Blues-Akkorde auf der Akkustik-Gitarre, DDR-Röhrenradio als Verstärker, Gitarrenunterricht per YouTube, Sex & Violence-Cover, Rüdiger von Lifeforce, das New Bedford Fest 1996, bewußtlos bei Lifetime, Show-Hopping in den 90ern, der Erste an der Essensausgabe, Popper im Herzen, auf Tour mit Iceburn, immer n Wasserkocher dabei, mit Erwartungsdruck kämpfen, der krasse Boys Club der 2000er, gern an Sachen hängen, mit Unbroken im Festsaal, das Button-Business, kein Bock auf Siebdruck, Ärger mit Engine Down, 20000 Buttons fürs Bandhaus, Dreh fürs ZDF, Earth First vs. Earth Crisis, fehlendes Wechselmodell, die erste Generation die Subkultur ins Alter bringen, cool mit Unprofessionalität umgehen, Painting & Gold Disco Ship, gern kochen, kaum noch gute Roggenbrötchen kriegen, ein übelst einfaches Rezept von Zucker & Jagdwurst, Wissen mit Johnny, uvm.Drei Songs für die Playlist:1) Der beste DEPECHE MODE-Song aller Zeiten: Never Let me Down Again2) Ein Hardcore‑Song, der John bis heute begleitet: WAXWING - One for the Ride3) Ein richtig guter aktueller Song: K. FLAY - Can´t Sleep

Dr. Pimple Popper - Sandra Lee suffered an ischemic stroke and almost missed every warning sign, Larissa Rodriguez was 17 years old with cardiomegaly linked to energy drinks, and K. Michelle is speaking out about silicone injection complications that nearly cost her everything. This week on Dr. Frita LIVE!, we are getting into all of it. We cover what stroke symptoms actually feel like when they are easy to dismiss, why one can of the energy drink 'Alani Nu' puts a teenager at double the recommended caffeine limit, and what the FDA really says about medical-grade silicone injections in our Myth vs. Fact segment.Brandi Glanville tried a TikTok garlic remedy and ended up in urgent care, looksmaxxing is one of the latest social media trends putting kids at serious risk, and Kevin Hart's daily workout routine gets a real medical look.It is the latest trending medical headlines and celebrity health news, and we want to hear from you.#HealthHappyLifePodcast #DrFrita #DrFritaLIVE! #CelebrityHealthNewsHere are a few helpful resources to help on your journey to wellness:▶️ Subscribe so you will never miss a YouTube video.

It's a batch of great questions from the Crowdpurr library! This episode's topic: JIM CARREY FILMS BAR CRAWL TIX: https://tinyurl.com/2s377a8n Host your own amazing quiz nights and bingo shows with Crowdpurr! New customers can get 25% off their first month on any upgraded plan and 10% off any annual plan using code BUDDS. Check it all out at www.crowdpurr.com/budds CHECK OUT GRYMES SPORTS INDUSTRIES LLC:  https://www.instagram.com/grymessportsindustries?igsh=ZHdjNzhsODRuNjJp Fact of the Day: In 1976 Bruce Springsteen broke into Graceland in an attempt to meet Elvis. Triple Connections: Fiddle, Nature, Chance THE FIRST TRIVIA QUESTION STARTS AT 02:19 SUPPORT THE SHOW MONTHLY, LISTEN AD-FREE FOR JUST $1 A MONTH: www.Patreon.com/TriviaWithBudds INSTANT DOWNLOAD DIGITAL TRIVIA GAMES ON ETSY, GRAB ONE NOW!  GET A CUSTOM EPISODE FOR YOUR LOVED ONES:  Email ryanbudds@gmail.com Theme song by www.soundcloud.com/Frawsty Bed Music:  "Laser Groove" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://TriviaWithBudds.comhttp://Facebook.com/TriviaWithBudds http://Instagram.com/ryanbudds Book a party, corporate event, or fundraiser anytime by emailing ryanbudds@gmail.com or use the contact form here: https://www.triviawithbudds.com/contact SPECIAL THANKS TO ALL MY AMAZING PATREON SUBSCRIBERS, INCLUDING:   Samantha Wheeler Mark Kloppenburg Amber Shiels Alan Kreisel Rich Sommer Joe Heiman Waqas Ali Logan Booker Bringeka Sam Nathan Stenstrom Brooks Martin Robyn Price Gee Brian Clough Charles Glanville IV Lauren Schuette Evan Lemons AnneMarie Mattacchione Yves Bouyssounouse Kenny Zail York yates Gay Geek Fabulous Mollie Dominic Nathalie Avelar Natasha raina leslie gerhardt Diane White Youngblood Trophy Husband Trivia Lynnette Keel Lillian Campbell Jerry Loven Jamie Greig Jeremy Yoder Adam Jacoby rondell Adam Suzan Tiffany Poplin Bill Bavar Sarah Daniel Hoisington Keith Martin Sue First Steve Hoeker Jessica Allen Lauren Glassman Brian Williams Brett Livaudais Linda Elswick Carter A. Fourqurean Justly Maya Brandon Lavin Kathy McHale Chuck Nealen Courtney French Nikki Long Mark Zarate Laura Palmer  JT Dean Bratton Kristy Erin Burgess Trenton Sullivan Jen and Nic Michael Redman Timothy Heavner Jeff Foust Richard Lefdal Myles Bagby Jenna Leatherman Vernon Heagy Albert Thomas Kimberly Brown Tracy Oldaker Sara Zimmerman Madeleine Garvey Jenni Yetter Patrick Leahy Dillon Enderby James Brown Christy Shipley Clayton Polizzi Alexander Calder Ricky Carney Paul McLaughlin Willy Powell Robert Casey Matthew Frost Brian Salyer Greg Bristow Megan Donnelly Jim Fields Mo Martinez Luke Mckay Simon Time Feana Nevel

Wasn't Popper a falsificationist? Then why did he try to develop ideas about corroboration and versimilitude - the extent to which a theory was closer to truth than another theory? Isn't this verging dangerously close to verificationist territory? In our fourth ep on Chapter 10 in C&R, we wrestle with Popper's treatment of verisimilutude, both the formal and informal versions. Did the project fail? Was Popper out of his mind? Does this invalidate everything? We discuss Murders with ball-peen hammers Walking the line between verification and falsification Is science only after truth? Verisimilutude and its formalization Why the formalization fails Popper's three requirements for the growth of knowledge Popper's ratchet and the no ad-hoc rule Quotes Like many other philosophers I am at times inclined to classify philosophers as belonging to two main groups—those with whom I disagree, and those who agree with me. - C&R, page 309 I shall give here a somewhat unsystematic list of six types of cases in which we should be inclined to say of a theory t1 that it is superseded by t2 in the sense that t2 seems—as far as we know—to correspond better to the facts than t1 , in some sense or other. t2 makes more precise assertions than t1 , and these more precise assertions stand up to more precise tests. t2 takes account of, and explains, more facts than t1 (which will include for example the above case that, other things being equal, t2 's assertions are more precise). t2 describes, or explains, the facts in more detail than t1 . t2 has passed tests which t 1 has failed to pass. t2 has suggested new experimental tests, not considered before t 2 was designed (and not suggested by t1 , and perhaps not even applicable to t1 ); and t 2 has passed these tests. t2 has unified or connected various hitherto unrelated problems. - C&R, page 315 Let me first say that I do not suggest that the explicit introduction of the idea of verisimilitude will lead to any changes in the theory of method. On the contrary, I think that my theory of testability or corroboration by empirical tests is the proper methodological counterpart to this new metalogical idea. The only improvement is one of clarification. - C&R, page 318 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. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube How many chromosomes does diethyl-methyl pentophosphate have, exactly? Tell as at incrementspodcast@gmail.com

'Part of My Brain Died': 'Dr. Pimple Popper' Sandra Lee Suffered Terrifying Stroke While Filming Lifetime Reality Show Causing Life Changing DamageAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

'Part of My Brain Died': 'Dr. Pimple Popper' Sandra Lee Suffered Terrifying Stroke While Filming Lifetime Reality Show Causing Life Changing DamageAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Lena Dunham stops by to discuss her new memoir “Famesick,” where she pulls back the curtain on her personal and professional life. Fitness expert Jacqueline Andriakos shares the hottest spring athleisure trends. Dr. Sandra Lee from the hit show “Dr. Pimple Popper” opens up about suffering a stroke and the road to recovery, and she sticks around to share some of her favorite products to improve skin health. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Good Morning and E News: Dr. Pimple Popper suffered a stroke, Timothee Chalamet helped the ballet, Chappelle's show is coming back, Taylor Swift leads the AMA's, and more... See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This is a two-part episode on the role of disagreement in science. In the first part, we discuss the "why," before moving on to the "how" in the next episode. Enjoy.    Shownotes Dellsén, F., & Baghramian, M. (2021). Disagreement in science: Introduction to the special issue. Synthese, 198(Suppl 25), 6011-6021. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson. Seidel, M. (2021). Kuhn's two accounts of rational disagreement in science: an interpretation and critique. Synthese, 198(25), 6023-6051. Shaw, J. (2021). Feyerabend and manufactured disagreement: reflections on expertise, consensus, and science policy. Synthese, 198(25), 6053-6084.  

100 episodes! To celebrate, Vaden tries to get personal with Ben, while Ben dodges his questions and wants to know how Vaden feels about incest. All in all, a pretty typical episode. The questions From Vaden to Ben: How is your side hustle going? Who are some of your major influences outside of Popper? How has the Popperian worldview influenced your day-to-day? What is the life of a nomadic academic like? What would you say to people who are considering mathematics as a career? Which charities do you recommend? From Ben to Vaden: How do you feel about looksmaxxing? Thoughts on medical assistance in dying? Ethics of Alex Honnold free soloing Taipei 101? Thoughts on Nation-Buiding? Incest - into it? Episode References #22 - Thinking Through Thought Experiments #66 - Sex Research, Addiction, and Financial Domination (w/ Aella) #58 - Ask Us Anything V: How to Read and What to Read #70 - ... and Bayes Bites Back (w/ Richard Meadows) #76 (Bonus) - Is P(doom) meaningful? Debating epistemology (w/ Liron Shapira) References Angus Deaton debates Abhijit Banerjee: https://nyudri.wordpress.com/initiatives/deaton-v-banerjee/ Christopher Hitchens and Robert Wright Sam Harris and Garry Kasparov Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind 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. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What is your favorite form of ince... actually nevermind, too much. Just email us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

Welcome to the Video Game Book Club where three of the gaming industry's best consultants (to never consult on a game) get together to talk about a specific video game in book club fashion. This week we will finish Titanfall 2. Next week we will start up Bioshock 2 where we will finish Ryan's Amusements and stop at Popper's Den. Don't forget to send comments and questions to testingroompod@gmail.com, comment down below or message us on instagram. Also don't forget to follow us on Twitch @ twitch.tv/testingroomlive and listen to us on the go where ever you get your podcasts!

Jesús Huerta de Soto traces the Austrian school's intellectual roots from the Spanish scholastics to Rothbard, making the case that anarcho-capitalism is the natural endpoint of the classical liberal tradition.The Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, sponsored by Yousif Almoayyed.The Austrian Economics Research Conference is the international, interdisciplinary meeting of the Austrian school, bringing together leading scholars doing research in this vibrant and influential intellectual tradition.Full Text version of the Lecture (Submitted by Prof. Huerta de Soto):Thank you very much to the Mises Institute and Joe Salerno for his kind introduction as well as for inviting me to deliver this “Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture” to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of Murray N. Rothbard's birthday. It is the second time I visit the Mises Institute to deliver this most important lecture: The first one was almost thirty years ago, back in April 1997, when I delivered a lecture on “The Scholastic Roots of the Austrian School”. In this second opportunity I am very happy to have been able to accept Joe's invitation and to come with a very well represented retinue of ten of my colleagues and doctoral students. All of them are teaching as professors or making their research at our more than twenty-year-old Doctoral and Master Programs in Austrian Economics at King Juan Carlos University back in Madrid, and which is the only one officially approved and with full validity inside the whole European Union. You have already had the opportunity to hear from each one of them a detailed description of the so-called “Madrid Austrian Research Hub” and of all the activities we are developing every year, including the 54 Doctoral Theses on Austrian Economics that have been read up to now in our program. And here you have also copies of the English version of our main books published by Routledge, Edward Elgar, and by the Macmillan Austrian Series edited by my Madrid Colleagues, the German professor Philipp Bagus and the Canadian professor Dave Howden. And you will have the unique opportunity to buy these books that, as you know, have a hefty price of almost 100 pounds each one, at the almost “stolen property” and symbolic price of 5 dollars per copy, thanks to the most generous help of the Spanish Jesús Huerta de Soto Foundation that is helping to finance our participation in this important event.And now what I will do in the next forty minutes is to try to summarize not only my main contributions, but also “The Libertarian Vision of the Scientific and Moral Truth” as we see it from our Austrian School Hub in Madrid. And I will do it by focusing on a series of fundamental points.Precisely, the youngest of all sciences, Economics is the one that has provided Humanity with the most important scientific contributionThe first one is that Economics, being the last science to arrive, or as Mises said, "the youngest of all sciences," has nevertheless achieved the milestone of providing Humanity with the most important scientific contribution. For the first time, and thanks to Economic Science, human beings have discovered and understood that voluntary social cooperation, free from all institutional and systematic external coercion, generates a spontaneous order that cannot be designed nor organized by anyone, and that peacefully and without limits drives the prosperity and expansion of Humankind.This transcendental message of Economic Science, on the one hand, resolves the impossible antithesis of attempting to apply, within the realm of interactions carried out by human beings endowed with free will, the manipulative approach of external entities that human beings have no choice but to use, supported by technology and the natural sciences, in order to dominate the subject of the material world. And on the other hand, this is a radically revolutionary message: for the first time, it has been scientifically demonstrated that states, in any of their forms, are neither necessary nor viable; that Society, understood as a process of voluntary human interactions, does not need anyone to govern it, because it regulates and organizes itself spontaneously; and that the attempt to coordinate Society on the basis of social engineering and state coercive commands is impossible, doomed to failure, and gives rise to all kinds of distortions, social conflicts and violence, that continually hinder and block human progress.Economic science is generalized into a complete Theory of Liberty that makes it possible to reinterpret History and promote the expansion of civilizationThe second point is that Economics has been generalized into a whole Theory of Liberty, understood as the most essential attribute and requirement of human nature. Liberty means that all human actions are carried out voluntarily, based on the principle of non-aggression, and free of external coercion or violence imposed and organized from above by the always minority group of human beings who, under whatever title, exercise any kind of political power.Moreover, Economics dismantles and turns upside down the erroneous and biased account of Thomas Hobbes and his followers. Neither was the "state of nature" a terrifying situation, nor did a supposed "social contract" ever exist or was it necessary to create and maintain a State that would impose order and guarantee peace. What happened was precisely the opposite: natural evolution consisted, above all, in the spontaneous discovery of the great advantages provided by voluntary exchanges and peaceful trade. Systematic and generalized violence, war, and terror arose only with the appearance of States, as coercive institutions composed of the most antisocial and violent human beings, who wanted (and still want) to live at the expense of plundering those citizens who earn their living by working and trading peacefully with each other (Oppenheimer, 1926).Thus, Economics, demonstrates that what Étienne de La Boétie named "voluntary servitude", is an anti-human aberration to which human beings have been subjected for centuries. And that it is not necessary to continue with the resigned habit of obeying the State; nor do governments enjoy an aura of prestige (but are literally "stripped" of any attribute of intellectual or moral superiority); nor is the caste—or “praetorian guard”—of intellectuals, “experts”, and acolytes that surround states and rulers to be regarded as untouchable; nor should we allow ourselves to be seduced and deceived by subsidies or perks, whether supposed or real, with which they seek to purchase the will and secure the loyalty of exploited human beings, so that they will consent, voluntarily and permanently, to their exploitation and servitude (De la Boétie, 1975).Economics is the Science developed by the Austrian School of Economics, which should in fact be known as the Spanish School, as it has its origins in the thinking of our scholastics of the Spanish Golden AgeThe third point is that Economic Science has reached its highest level of development thanks to the Austrian School of Economics. As you know, our school is based on the realism of its analytical assumptions, in the dynamic approach based on the entrepreneurial, creative, and coordinating capacity of every human being, and in the study of the spontaneous and self-regulated order of the social process of voluntary human interactions (Huerta de Soto, 2008). The institutional and multidisciplinary approach of the Austrian School is also very relevant. As a result of the spontaneous social process important institutions emerge which, in turn, make it possible and drive it forward: Law and property rights rooted in human nature and discovered and developed spontaneously outside the state; the family, a basic and essential institution, on which the expansion of Humanity is made possible and consolidated; moral principles, which act as a true "automatic pilot" for liberty and which human beings internalize and transmit from generation to generation, thanks to the family and other community or religious institutions; economic institutions, and in particular, money, which also evolves spontaneously outside the State, and which can and should be considered the social institution par excellence, since by overcoming the problems of barter, it enables the exponential multiplication of voluntary exchanges and human interactions, within which the rest of the social, linguistic, moral, legal, economic, and religious institutions are discovered, shaped, and perfected.Our fourth point is that the first theorists of the spontaneous order emerged in the field of law, led by the great jurists of classical Rome. They were the first ones to understand the organic and evolutionary nature of the social process, and so they became, without being aware of it, the first economists. Their tradition was kept alive throughout the Middle Ages thanks to the Catholic Church and, through thinkers such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Antoninus of Florence, and Saint Bernardino of Siena, eventually came to influence the Spanish scholastics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries gathered around the University of Salamanca. As Rothbard demonstrated (Rothbard, 1976) these thinkers of the Spanish Golden Age should be considered the most immediate precedent of the Austrian School of Economics, which, precisely for this reason, should be called the Spanish School of Economics. And in fact, these Spanish scholastics were already able to articulate the following ten essential principles which constitute the theoretical foundation of the Austrian School:Firstly, the subjective theory of value developed by the Bishop of Segovia, Diego de Covarrubias, who as early as 1555 clearly explained that, although the objective nature of wheat is the same in Spain as in America, its price was higher in America because there human beings subjectively valued it much more highly; from this follows the correct relationship between prices and costs set out by Luis Sarabia de la Calle, in the sense that it is market prices that determine costs and not the other way around, as equilibrium theorists mistakenly believe; the Scholastics also realized that equilibrium models and prices lack realism and theoretical meaning because they presuppose a degree of knowledge “so complex that only God, and in no case human beings, could ever acquire it” (in latin “pretium iustum mathematicum licet soli Deo notum”), as already explained by the Jesuit cardinals Juan de Salas in 1617 and Juan de Lugo in 1643, more than three hundred years earlier than Hayek could conclude that “a science which assumes knowledge that can never be acquired is not a Science”; also the dynamic concept of competition is fundamental, understood as a process of rivalry among sellers based on the dynamic conception of market processes developed by Jerónimo Castillo de Bobadilla and Luis de Molina in 1589 and 1597, and that has nothing to do with the static model of "perfect competition" of equilibrium theorists; and also the important contributions of the Spanish Scholastics related with capital theory, business cycles, and the effects of fiduciary media generated by banks; so, particular emphasis should be placed on the rediscovery of the principle of time preference by Martín de Azpilcueta, following what Lessines had already stated in 1285; as well as on the fact that bankers commit mortal sin when they operate with fractional reserves, creating bank deposits as a form of virtual money (or chirographis pecuniarium, as Luis de Molina said in latin) that only exists in their accounting books and distorts the structure of relative prices, creating bubbles and deep economic crises that ultimately "bring everything crashing down," as Saravia de la Calle and Tomás de Mercado so vividly explained in the 16th Century; and in short, the Scholastic's idea that it is impossible to organize society through coercive commands due to lack of the information that would be required to give them coordinating content; as well as the discovery that inflation is a hidden and very harmful tax that arises from an act of tyranny, since it is neither known nor accepted by citizens, which would even justify the assassination of the King according to the theory of tyrannicide, a contribution originally made by the Castilian Comuneros eventually defeated by the tyrant King Charles V in 1521, and developed by Father Juan de Mariana almost a century later [in 1610].This entire line of proto-Austrian scholastic thought also spread throughout the Americas, especially in the newly founded universities of San Marcos in Lima and Mexico City in 1551 where brilliant disciples of these Scholastics, who had studied at the University of Salamanca itself, came to occupy prominent academic positions. Thus, for example, we should mention the cases of Bartolomé Frías de Albornoz in Mexico, and above all the great Juan de Matienzo, who became judge and president of the Royal Audiencia of Charcas and Lima from 1560 onwards (Popescu, 1997).Finally, the doctrine of our scholastics did spread even to North America two centuries later through the books of Juan de Mariana, who greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers of the United States.However, the southern part of the continent ultimately proved unable to neutralize the wave of growing statism and centralization that first came with the arrivals of the Habsburgs in Spain, and which was intensified even further after the arrival of the Bourbons with Philip V at the beginning of the eighteenth century (Martínez Marina, 1820). How different and much more prosperous and libertarian might the historical evolution of Spain and Latin America have been, had the statist centralism of the Habsburgs and the Bourbons not prevailed, and had the far more libertarian, local, and decentralized traditional representative institutions of the kingdoms of Castile instead remained predominant—institutions that were dismantled, together with Europe's first libertarian revolution, beginning with the defeat of the Castilian Comuneros at Villalar on April 23, 1521 (Leonard Liggio, 2025).The most important and far-reaching contributions of economic scienceLet us now turn, in greater detail, to the most important contributions of Economics, as developed by the Austrian School.First, human cooperation takes place spontaneously, without the need for anyone to organize it coercively from outside. This is so because human beings are endowed with an entrepreneurial and creative capacity that continually drives them to discover the multiple opportunities for profit that arise in their environment. Each of these opportunities embodies a previous discoordination in human behavior that remains latent until it is discovered and overcome by the corresponding entrepreneurial act. This entrepreneurial act always arises from a creative tension and interpretation of events of the outside world that is essentially subjective and, therefore, cannot be reproduced by any artificial intelligence algorithm; in other words, the same objective events can be interpreted in multiple ways, even contradictory ones, without it being possible to postulate which is correct until the corresponding entrepreneurial process is completed in the form of a subjective profit. In any case, every entrepreneurial act involves, firstly, the creation of information that did not exist before (regarding the profit opportunity that arose from the previous discoordination that had gone unnoticed); secondly, the transmission of that knowledge (directly to the parties involved in the entrepreneurial act and indirectly through a series of institutions and signals such as market prices); and third and finally, the coordination of the previous maladjustments takes place when the parties involved learn motu proprio, that is, voluntarily and for their own benefit, to discipline their behavior according to the needs of others (for example, when they discover that they achieve their ends more effectively by specializing and trading peacefully the mutual results of their efforts). The discovery of the essence of this pure entrepreneurial act, with its elements of creation and transmission of information and the spontaneous coordination of the previous maladjustments continually generated by human coexistence, constitutes the most important contribution that Economic Science has provided to Humanity, and explains why the spontaneous process of voluntary social cooperation that drives the multiplication of human beings and the expansion of civilization does not require any statist system of institutional coercion.Another essential contribution of Economics is the concept of Dynamic Efficiency, understood as the process of unlimited expansion of human creativity and entrepreneurial coordination that arises only within a specific institutional framework of moral and legal norms. This framework is the one grounded on the ethical principle according to which every human being has a natural right to appropriate the results of his entrepreneurial creativity; that is, a property right over what one has created and which did not previously exist, which is the most obvious and important human right. For this reason, (dynamic) Efficiency and Morality and Justice (properly understood) cannot be separated one from the other; or, as we might say, they are two sides of the same coin in the sense that only Justice and Morality induce and generate efficiency; and at the same time, what is dynamically efficient in economic terms cannot be neither unjust nor immoral. All of which, on the other hand, demonstrates the integrated order that exists in the social universe, and highlights the three levels of research (theoretical, ethical, and historical) that complement and reinforce with each other and are essential in our search for truth (Huerta de Soto, 2000).Finally, another key contribution of Economic Science is to have demonstrated the impossibility of socialism, or better, the impossibility of statism, in the sense that it is impossible for the State to achieve and coordinate what it promises for the following four reasons:First, because of the enormous volume of information required for such coordination, which the State cannot acquire because it is dispersed in the minds of the eight billion human beings who participate and interact in the social process every day. Second, given the tacit and inarticulate character of this information (and therefore its inability to be transmitted in an objective manner). Third, because the information that is generated is not "given," nor is it static, but instead changes continuously as a result of human creativity, making it impossible to transmit today information that will only be created tomorrow, and which is precisely the information that the organs of State intervention and the so-called “experts” would need today in order to direct society to achieve their objectives tomorrow. And fourth, and above all, because the coercive nature of State commands blocks the entrepreneurial activity of creating the very information which the State organization itself would need in order to give its commands a coordinating content. In sum, the State is always and everywhere violence and coercion; coercion blocks the entrepreneurial act of creation, discovery, and adjustment of discoordinated human behavior, while at the same time preventing the creation of the information and the emergence of free market prices that make economic calculation and social coordination possible. For this reason, statism is not only unnecessary but is also scientifically impossible.The impact of these essential contributions of Economics on the course of social evolution has so far been very limitedAll of these scientific contributions have so far achieved only a very partial, imperfect, and limited impact on the inertia of a social and political reality that has for centuries been characterized by the coercive power of States and rulers, and by the more or less resigned servitude of the citizens. And despite the very limited nature of this impact to date, which at best has materialized in a series of naïve and "liberal" revolutions aimed, with as much arrogance as lack of success, toward the impossible objective of trying to separate and limit the powers of states and rulers through political constitutions and "liberal democracies" (Rothbard, 2009); Humanity has been propelled as never before in those places and historical moments where it has managed, despite everything, to at least partially free itself from the State and open up some of the new channels of liberty shown by the teachings of Economics. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, which was but the first chapter of the never-completed "Revolution of Liberty" inspired by Economics. And although what has been achieved in terms of prosperity and standard of living by the now eight billion human beings seems relatively significant—and indeed it is—we cannot even conceive of the standard of living and population size that could be achieved if Humanity were able to take full advantage of and fully implement the teachings of Economic Science.We can be few and poor in a context of servitude and submission to the State, or many and wealthy in a context of liberty (Hayek, 1988, p. 133). The globe is practically empty of human beings (the Earth's current population would fit into an area equivalent to that of the state of Alaska, with a population density equal to that of Brussels). And we cannot even imagine the prosperity that could be achieved in a free market daily driven by eighty billion, or even eight hundred billion, human beings. Economics explains and demonstrates that the increasing prosperity of an ever-growing population of human beings never results from deliberate and coercive State plans, nor from the egalitarian income redistribution, nor from increases in public spending, nor from subsidies, debt, or inflation, but only arises from the free market of the capitalist system. This consists of the process of voluntary exchanges among all human beings who, endowed with an innate entrepreneurial and creative capacity, are able to detect and assess, through the system of free prices, the relative urgency and necessity of each good and service, overcoming the relative scarcity of each and satisfying, every day and in the best humanly possible way, the desires and needs of billions of consumers. Entrepreneurs who succeed in this never-ending process of profit-seeking accumulate significant resources, which, in turn, are saved and invested in capital goods and new technologies that make human beings increasingly productive, boosting their wages and standards of living; a virtuous process of continuously expanding prosperity and population growth that, if not coerced or hindered by the State, has no limits.Therefore, it is crucially important for the future of Humanity that it be able to take full and maximum advantage of the lessons and essential message in pursuit of human liberty that Economics provides. But this will only be possible if we are able to unmask and carefully analyze the powerful forces of the pseudoscientific and counterrevolutionary reaction that has been mobilized to prevent the advance of the theory of liberty derived from Economic Science. Despite their diverse origins, they all converge on the same objective: to attempt to justify and preserve State coercion at all costs under the appearance of scientific legitimacy. They are driven by the "fatal conceit" (Hayek, 1988) of many visionaries, thinkers, and supposed "experts" who believe themselves to be clever enough to correct the spontaneous market order, of course, using the violence and coercive power of the State. Together with a privileged caste of rulers, bureaucrats and acolytes, they continually manipulate a Humanity that is sadly accustomed to serving the State. For all of them, it is vital that statism be maintained and that the message of liberty provided by Economics never prevail.Next, we will list the main reactionary pseudoscientific currents that have infiltrated Economic Science like a lethal virus and constitute, in Hayek's terminology, "the counter-revolution of science" (Hayek, 1955).Pseudoscientific reactionary currents opposed to Economic Science. The role played as “useful innocents” by many libertarian economists of the counterrevolutionary mainstreamFirst, positivism and scientism as pseudoscience. By "scientism" we must understand the improper application of the methods of the natural sciences to the field of Economic Science. Thus, while the natural sciences study their object of research as something external, measurable, and quantifiable, Economics studies the implications of the voluntary actions of human beings. And given the essentially creative nature of human beings, the supposed empirical "evidence" has, at best, only a superficial, partial, and always historically contingent value. In Bastiat's words, of "what is seen" —or rather, what is believed to have been seen— but not "what is not seen" (Bastiat, 1995); and at worst, it always entails the assumption, that human beings are an object of research that can be manipulated as the matter of the external world studied by the natural sciences. This inevitably introduces the idea that to improve the world, the State and its rulers must use their coercive power to manipulate and change the things they believe they see in their historically contingent "empirical photos." But these "empirical photos" cannot capture the underlying dynamic essence of spontaneous social processes, let alone what is already happening spontaneously to solve and coordinate every problem. Therefore, it is not surprising that from the very first steps of Economic Science promoted by the Austrian School, its most violent opponents were the "socialists of the chair" gathered around the German Historical School, reinforced in France by the empiricists of the school of Saint-Simon, the insane Comte, and Durkheim, who sought to create a new and alternative pseudoscience of society. And their unhealthy positivist and ultra-empirical influence has persisted to the present day, first through American Institutionalism and later through the massive compilation of empirical data, for example, in the work of Wesley C. Mitchell or Henry Schultz, the latter, as shown by Professor Salerno, having gone on to exert a decisive influence on his assistant Milton Friedman and, through him, even on the Chicago School itself (Salerno, 2023).Secondly, the pseudoscience of neoclassical economics is characterized by its claim that only its own approach constitutes true “science,” that is, the approach based on the principles of equilibrium, maximization, and constancy. Moreover, in addition to the lack of realism of its assumptions, it adds the reductionism of a mathematical language that has developed in response to the needs and demands of the natural sciences, but which is alien to Economic Science because it does not allow for the subjective concept of time or entrepreneurial creativity. Neoclassical economists develop their pseudoscience based not on real human beings of flesh and blood, but on "ideal types" that are like "robotic penguins" who, even in their most sophisticated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models are limited to moving and reacting to events and State coercion as if they were characters of a sort of economic video game ("videogame economics"). Yet neoclassical pseudoscience, despite its apparent and ever-increasing sophistication, is not capable of accounting for the immense complexity of the real world and rebels against the idea of spontaneous market order in two ways that are equally harmful to human liberty: on the one hand, by promoting the coercive "social engineering" of central banks, States, and governments to use "fine tuning" to force reality toward to the mathematical optimum of their models; and, on the other hand, by labeling as "market failures" everything they believe they observe in reality that does not coincide, in their empirical studies, with their ghostly models of “perfect” equilibrium and adjustment (Milei, 2023); failures that, according to them, refute the "benefits" of the spontaneous order of the market and human liberty, and justify their elimination as soon as possible by a coercive State authority. Note also how neoclassical pseudoscience needs, and feeds upon, the empirical work of the previous pseudoscience, positivism, in order to justify its conclusions against human liberty and in favor of State coercion, so that positivists and neoclassicists join hands and end up reinforcing each other in their reactionary agenda.Third, Keynesianism and macroeconomics as pseudoscience. The very “macro” approach already entails, inevitably, an obvious bias in favor of justifying State intervention, aggression, and coercion against the spontaneous order of the market and human liberty. As F. A. Hayek pointed out in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1974 (Hayek, 1978), macroeconomists ignore everything they cannot measure, specifically truly relevant economic processes and theories. At the same time, they believe that certain aggregate concepts—which lack genuine economic meaning—possess a “real” existence, that permits to collect empirical information or evidence that can be manipulated and statistically treated. Once again, macroeconomic pseudoscience goes hand in hand with positivist pseudoscience, and the two reinforce with each other in their counterrevolutionary reaction. Furthermore, Keynesianism is particularly harmful: not only does it flatly deny the coordinating capacity of creative entrepreneurship and the spontaneous market order, but it also builds as an alternative explanation a whole model—of course—of equilibrium with permanent unemployment, to justify the coercive intervention of the State in the lives of human beings in the form of all kinds of fiscal and monetary manipulations. Moreover, the macroeconomic and Keynesian pseudoscience feeds upon, and is reinforced by, the pseudoscientific approach of the Neoclassical School, to the point that, the so-called "neoclassical Keynesian synthesis" became, throughout the twentieth century, the main reactionary movement inside Economics. Keynesians and macroeconomists thus become the champions of that intoxication with statism, manipulation, and political power which constitutes the framework, orchestrated by governments and central banks, to which we have, regrettably, become accustomed and in which we are forced to live. This context repeatedly destabilizes the spontaneous market order, generates serious financial and economic crises and social conflicts, and continually hampers the prosperity and advance of civilization.We have left the quasi-religious mysticism of Marxist pseudoscience for last, because Marxism was scientifically dead even before it was born: in fact, it emerged with—and was theoretically demolished by—the subjectivist revolution led by the Austrian School of Economics. From the beginning, the Austrian School's development of time preference and capital theory revealed the contradictions and grave scientific errors of Marxism, while at the same time exposing its pronounced character as an intellectual fraud (Böhm-Bawerk, 1949). This intellectual fraud was historically illustrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and of virtually all other communist countries, after many decades of unspeakable human suffering for a large part of the world's population, all of which was perfectly consistent with the theory on the impossibility of statism developed by the Austrian School beginning with the von Mises of 1920 (Mises, 1936), and which was the final nail that forever sealed the coffin of the corpse of Marxist pseudoscience (Huerta de Soto, 2010).Finally, in this context, we must mention the destructive role played by a number of distinguished economists who, although they defend liberty and the market economy, could be described as a kind of "useful innocents" in Mises' terminology (Mises, 1947). This is so because, even though they officially oppose rampant statism and defend liberty, by accepting—even if only partially—some of the postulates of the reactionary pseudoscientific currents we have described, they ultimately end up, often without intending to and much to their regret, providing additional impetus to the statist reaction within our discipline; for example, when they insist on advising States with proposals aimed at making them more efficient and at helping them do somewhat better things that they should not be doing at all. By way of illustration, we should include in this category of “useful innocents”, for example, thinkers as the Karl Popper of The Open Society and Its Enemies (Popper, 1966, p. 366), who came to admire the “scientific capacity” and even the “humanism” of Karl Marx, and who proposed a statist strategy of “piecemeal social engineering”; or George Stigler, when he claimed that only empirical evidence could determine which economic system, socialism or capitalism, might function (Stigler, 1975, pp. 1-13); and, more generally, the members of the Chicago School, led by Gary Becker and Milton Friedman. Becker when defending that only economics developed within the strict limits of equilibrium, constancy, and maximization, typical of the neoclassical pseudoscience, constitutes true "economic science." And even more serious could be considered the case of Milton Friedman, whose very sincere love of liberty and intense and popular media support for free markets stand in sharp contrast to his pseudoscientific approach based on the aggregate method of economics of Keynesian origin, on positivist empiricism, and on the full acceptance of the unrealism of assumptions. Only in this way it can be explained Friedman's litany of scientific errors which, much to his regret, have invariably ended up reinforcing statist interventionism, to the point that Hayek himself was forced to conclude that after Keynes's The General Theory, the book that has done the greatest harm to Economic Science has been Friedman's Essays in Positive Economics (Hayek, 1994, pp. 145).The failure of democracy and classical liberalism: the triumph of statismAs we see, many classical liberals and advocates of liberal democracy have also acted as "useful innocents." The fatal error of classical liberals lies in the failure to realize that their program is theoretically impossible, because it incorporates within itself the seeds of its own destruction, precisely to the extent that it considers necessary and accepts the existence of a State (even if it is "minimal") understood as the monopolistic agency of institutional coercion. Therefore, the great error of classical liberals is very basic: they believe in a program of political action and economic doctrine that aims to limit the power of the State, while at the same time accepting it and even considering state's existence necessary. However Economic Science has already shown that the State is unnecessary, that statism (even in its minimal form) is theoretically impossible, and that, given human nature, once the State exists, it is impossible to limit its power. On the other hand, liberal democracy is a concept as naïve as it is impossible. Mises already warned us that democracy could only function if all its participants accepted the classical liberal principles, which is impossible because democracy itself encourages and amplifies vote-buying and the partisan use of power. So, the inevitable conclusion is that "liberal democracy" is a contradiction in terms as absurd as speaking (following Anthony de Jasay) of a “square circle,” of “hot snow,” or of a “virgin prostitute” (A. de Jasay, 1990). And even Hayek considered democracy unworkable if it is understood as the exercise of absolute power by majorities (Kratos in classical Greek). It should therefore come as no surprise that democracy once and again tends to be a perverse system based on lying and buying votes with money stolen through taxation.The fact is that the State attracts like a magnet the worst passions and vices of human nature, for instance, when individuals try to obtain rents produced by others using the State's coercive power. Moreover, the combined effect of the privileged groups, the phenomena of governmental myopia and vote-buying, the megalomaniacal character of politicians, and the irresponsibility and blindness of bureaucracies generate a dangerous, unstable and explosive cocktail, continually shaken by social, economic, and political crises which, paradoxically, are always used by the political caste to justify further doses of intervention and statism that, instead of solving problems, further aggravate them. Statism therefore corrupts the entire social body and at the same time blocks the spontaneous and free market solutions of social and economic problems.In fact, the State has become the "idol" that almost everyone turns to and worships. Statolatry is the most serious and dangerous social disease of our time. We are educated to believe that all problems can and must be detected and solved by the State. Our destiny depends on the State, and the politicians who control it are expected to guarantee everything our well-being may require. Human beings remain immature and rebel against their own creative nature, which makes their future always uncertain. They demand a crystal ball that assures them not only knowing what will happen, but also that any problems that arise will be solved for them. This "infantilization" of the masses is encouraged by politicians, as it justifies their own existence and ensures their popularity, position of dominance, and capacity to control. In addition, a whole legion of intellectuals, so-called "experts," and social engineers join in this arrogant intoxication of power. Not even the Church and the most respectable religious denominations have been able to realize that statolatry today constitutes the principal threat to the free, moral, and responsible human being; that the State is a false idol of immense power, worshipped by all, and that does not allow Humanity to be free from its control or have moral or religious loyalties beyond those the state can dominate. Furthermore, it is kept hidden from the public that the state is the true source of social conflicts and evils, and "scapegoats" (such as "capitalism" or private property) are blamed for the problems, and they become the goal of the most serious condemnations, even from moral and religious leaders, almost none of whom have realized the deception or dared to denounce that statolatry is the main threat in the present century to religion, morality, and, therefore, to human civilization.Perhaps the main exception within the Church is included in the brilliant biography of Jesus of Nazareth written by Benedict XVI. That the State and political power constitute the institutional incarnation of the Antichrist should be obvious to anyone with a minimal knowledge of history who reads the former Pope's considerations on the most serious temptation that the Evil One can present to us (and I quote Ratzinger literally): "The tempter is not so crude as to propose to us directly the worship of the devil. He merely proposes that we opt for the rational solution, that we prefer a planned and organized world in which God may have a place as a private spiritual matter, but must not be allowed to interfere in our essential purposes. Soloviev attributes to the Antichrist a book entitled The Open Road to World Peace and Prosperity; it becomes the new Bible, and its core message is the worship of well-being and rational planning," by the state (Ratzinger, 2007). And so, we should not be surprised that, for example, the great author of The Lord of the Rings, J. R. Tolkien, whose Catholic anarchism I fully share, went so far as to say that he would arrest anyone for simply daring to pronounce the word "State." Because the State is, always and everywhere, a reality of violence and systematic coercion against the most intimate essence of the human being, which is his capacity to act freely, creatively, and spontaneously; and so, it is unavoidable to conclude that the State is essentially immoral and that statism constitutes the principal threat to humankind.A theological digression: the dismantling of statism as a logical necessity inseparable from the work of GodAnd almost without realizing it, we can go ahead with a theological digression on how dismantling the State is a logical and moral necessity inseparable from the work of God. I fully understand that referring to God in this conference may come as a shock to many of those present, but I would ask that even those who do not believe in God, at least for dialectical purposes, make an effort of imagination and, for the next few minutes, imagine that God does indeed exist.And what do we mean by God? We must understand God to be a Supreme Being, Creator out of love for all things. And the most important creature that God has created is precisely the human being: in His image and likeness. And if there is a point of connection between God and man, it is precisely in the creative entrepreneurial ability: the capacity to discover, to see, and to create new things, goals and actions. But now I am going to go one step further and attempt to demonstrate that God is not only the Supreme, loving Creator of all things, but that—moreover—God is libertarian.And what does it mean to say that God is libertarian? It means that God, the Lord of all the Universe, has absolute power over it, and yet He chooses not to use force, but always leaves his creatures free. To the point that He gives human beings the freedom to rebel against Him; even though, again and again, God forgives human beings and allows them to rise up and begin anew.God always lets the universe He has created, flow in a spontaneous manner ("laissez faire, laissez passer, le monde va de lui même" could be the motto of our libertarian God). And this despite the fact that human beings tempt God again and again and demand that He manifest His absolute power, that He give us clear and indisputable signs of His existence and supreme power in order for us to believe in Him. But of course, God does not accept our challenge. Why? Because love and liberty are inseparable, and a forced conversion, for example by an evident cataclysm, would be completely contrary to that liberty with which God has created human beings out of love.Moreover, the Kingdom of God is not of this world; Jesus himself says this to a fearful Roman state official, who was also in charge of judging him: "My kingdom is not of this world." Does this mean that there are two types of kingdoms? The kingdoms of this world or States, which would be legitimate at their own level (remember "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"), and the Kingdom of God, of ("render unto God the things that are God's"). That is the standard interpretation that has prevailed until now, but I think is completely wrong. The Kingdom of God—which is the exact opposite of the kingdoms or States of this world—never makes systematic use of violence and coercion: it is a Kingdom that has already come to us and, moreover, has been given to us freely, in an act of immense mercy and love (Deus caritas est). And just as the hateful institution of slavery came to an end, the Kingdom of God will also dismantle the kingdoms of this world, the states of this world, or as St. Paul said, of every principality, power, and glory (Ephesians 1:21-23), because God is libertarian and man is made in the image and likeness of God.Ludwig von Mises, in his book Interventionism, introduced the term "destructionism" to refer to the economic and social effects of statism. If Evil (represented by statist destructionism in Mises' terminology) were to prevail, the human race and civilization would have disappeared long ago. The fact that, despite everything and the immense power of seduction of statism over humankind, the process of social cooperation continues to unfold and even prosper in certain historical periods and geographical areas, is a clear manifestation that God does not abandon the world nor leave libertarians alone in their struggle against the Evil; and that Good, represented by liberty, the principle of non-aggression, the spontaneous order of the market, entrepreneurial creativity and coordination, and above all, moral principles, always with God's help, prevails and is capable of overcoming Evil, represented by the fatal conceit of the statist ideal and the destruction that it produces.And now I will finish with some thoughts on anarcho-capitalism as the only possible system of social cooperation truly compatible with human natureAnd now I will finish with some thoughts on anarcho-capitalism as the only possible system of social cooperation truly compatible with human nature. The most important intellectual and moral event that is taking place nowadays is the full fusion between Christianity and anarcho-capitalism. Because anarcho-capitalism is the only possible system of social cooperation that is truly compatible with human nature. Anarcho-capitalism is the purest representation of the spontaneous market order in which all services, including law, justice, and public order, are provided through a voluntary process of social cooperation. In this system, no area is closed to the drive of human creativity and entrepreneurial coordination; efficiency and justice in the resolution of problems are simultaneously enhanced, while the conflicts, inefficiencies, and discoordinations generated by the State are eradicated at their root.The progressive abolition of States and their gradual replacement by a dynamic network of private agencies different legal systems, and providing all kinds of prevention and defense services, constitutes the most important social transformation that will take place in the twenty first century. Without forgetting that exactly what prevents us from knowing with precision what the future without the state will look like, the creative nature of entrepreneurship, is what gives us the peace of mind of knowing that any problem will tend to be resolved and overcome, once the entrepreneurial effort and creativity of Humanity are devoted to its solution (Kirzner, 1985).Therefore, the revolution against the “Old Régime” carried out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the old classical liberals, today finds its natural continuation in the anarcho-capitalist revolution of the twenty-first century. The message of anarcho-capitalism is clearly revolutionary. Revolutionary in terms of its goal: the dismantling of the State and its replacement by a competitive market process consisting of a network of private agencies, associations, and organizations. And revolutionary in terms of its means, especially in the scientific, economic-social, and political fields:a) First, Scientific revolution, in the field of Economic Science, which becomes the general theory of spontaneous market order extended to all social areas. And by contrast and opposition, the theory and analysis of the effects of social discoordination generated by statism in any sphere in which it operates, as well as the study of the transition process from the State towards liberty.b) Second, an Economic and social revolution, as we cannot even imagine today the immense human achievements and discoveries that could be made in an entrepreneurial environment totally free from statism. Today, and despite continuous governmental harassment, an unknown civilization is already developing, with a degree of complexity that is beyond the reach and control of the state, and which will achieve unlimited expansion once it manages to completely rid itself of statism. And when human beings become more and more aware of the perverse nature of the State that restricts them, and of the immense possibilities that are frustrated each day when the State blocks the driving force of their entrepreneurial creativity, the social demand to reform and dismantle the State will multiply creating a future that is largely unknown to us but that will elevate human civilization to heights that we cannot even imagine today.c) And finally, a political revolution in which, although day-to-day political struggle is important, it should not be the top priority. It is true that the least interventionist alternatives must always be supported, in clear alliance with the efforts of classical liberals in their long term impossible democratic limitation of the State (including reforms such as those proposed by Hayek in the third volume of Law, Legislation, and Liberty). But the anarcho-capitalist does not stop at this task, for he knows that he can and must do much more. He knows that the ultimate goal is the total dismantling of the State, and this goal leads all his imagination and political action in everyday life. And here we cannot fail to mention the unprecedented impact of our disciple and follower of our Master Program in Austrian Economics in Madrid, the President of Argentina, Javier Milei, who has done more than anyone else before to disseminate the principles of the Austrian School and the anarcho-capitalist ideal. Principles that he never ceases to quote and explain and defend once and again in all his public appearances, from the United Nations to the Davos Forum; and in all his meetings with other Heads of State, universities, and parliaments, to whom he even gives copies of the most important Austrian works by Mises, Hayek and even myself, as he did, for example, with the two popes, Francis and Leo XIV, with the French President Macron, the Italian Prime Minister Meloni, and even with Elon Musk. For us, it is a great honor that Milei has, to a large extent, emerged from the Austrian School of Madrid and that he continually keeps drawing inspiration from us. This is, without a doubt, much more important than incremental political steps in the right direction—which should of course be welcomed—and that should never fall into a political pragmatism that could betray the ultimate goal of achieving the end of the State (Huerta de Soto, 2010).And all this with tireless enthusiasm in the search for scientific and moral truth, an attitude that, inspired by the immortal work of Miguel de Cervantes, we could describe as follows: "It matters not whether they be giants or windmills, when the plume of our helm is stirred by the winds of tenacity and faith." And always creating a future that, although it may seem distant today, may at any moment witness giant steps that will surprise even the most optimistic among us. History has entered into an accelerated process of change which, although it will never stop, will open a whole new chapter when humankind finally succeeds in ridding itself definitively of the State, reducing it to no more than a dark historical relic of tragic memory.Thank you very much.REFERENCESBASTIAT, Frédéric: Selected Essays on Political Economy, Foundation for Economic Education, New York 1995.DE LA BOÉTIE, Étienne: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, Free Life Editions, Nueva York 1975.BÖHM-BAWERK, Eugen von: Karl Marx and the Close of His System, Augustus M. Kelley, Nueva York 1949."The Exploitation Theory," Capital and Interest, Vol. I: History and Critique of Interest Theories, Libertarian Press, South Holland 1959.HAYEK, Friedrich A. von: The Counter-Revolution of Science, Free Press, New York, 1955.Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue (eds. Stephen Kresge and Leif Wenar), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1994.Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. III: The Political Order of a Free People, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1979.The Fatal Conceit: the Errors of Socialism, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1988."The Pretence of Knowledge," in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1978.HUERTA DE SOTO, Jesús: Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham y Northampton 2010."A Hayekian Strategy to Implement Free Market Reforms," in Theory of Dynamic Efficiency, Routledge, Oxfordshire, 2010.Proyecto Docente, Chapter I: "Ciencia y Economía," Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid 2000.The Austrian School: Market Order and Creative Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham y Northampton 2008.DE JASAY, Anthony: Market Socialism: A Scrutiny, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, Occasional Paper no. 84, 1990.KIRZNER, Israel: "The Perils of Regulation: A Market Process Approach" in Discovery and the Capitalist Process, University of Chicago Press, 1985.LIGGIO, Leonard: "The Hispanic tradition of Liberty," published in Procesos de Mercado: Revista Europea de Economía Política, vol. XXII, nº 1, Summer 2025, pp. 403-420.MARTÍNEZ MARINA, Francisco: Teoría de las cortes o grandes juntas nacionales de los reinos de León y Castilla, Collado, 1820.MILEI, Javier: Capitalism, Socialism, and the Neoclassical Trap, in The Emergence of a Tradition: Essays in Honor of Jesús Huerta de Soto, Volume II (editors Howden, D., Bagus, P.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2023.MISES, Ludwig von: Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Jonathan Cape, London 1936.Planned Chaos, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson 1947.OPPENHEIMER, Franz: The State, Vanguard Press, Nueva York 1926.POPESCU, Oreste: Studies in the History of Latin American Economic Thought, Routledge, London 1997.POPPER, Karl: The Open Society and its Enemies, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1966.RATZINGER, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. Translated by Adrian J. Walker. Doubleday, New York, 2007.ROTHBARD, Murray N.: "New Light on the Prehistory of the Austrian School," in The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics (editor Edwin G. Dolan), Sheed and Ward, Kansas City 1976, pp. 52–74.Anatomy of the State, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn 2009.SALERNO, Joseph. "Milton Friedman's Views on Method and Money Reconsidered in Light of the Housing Bubble", in The Emergence of a Tradition: Essays in Honor of Jesús Huerta de Soto, Volume I, (editors Howden, D., Bagus, P.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2023.STIGLER, George: The Citizen and the State, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975, pp. 1-13.

Today, Jon and Austin jump into a fun mix of food debates and taste testing. They start by discussing pizza toppings that might be red flags in men, sharing the funny, oddly specific, and surprisingly passionate opinions people have about what's on a slice. Jon then serves up his homemade Jalapeño Popper Sliders, and the guys dig in to give their honest thoughts. To wrap things up, they break down food labels (Clean Label vs. Organic) and debate which one matters more and which they'd prefer to eat. It's a lively, flavorful episode full of laughs, insights, and great food.  

Lori is joined by Steve Popper from Newsday to get his thoughts on the Knicks loss to the Lakers and more.

Enough of my tour journals, let's shake it up and bring in special guest star and longtime friend of the show, Pedalshift Society member Brock Dittus in on a tour of not the Oregon coast! Brock travels solo through some of the steepest riding in the state, fueled by fried spicy goodness. Would that be enough to handle the climbs and our old nemesis, wildfire smoke? Originally podcast July 13, 2023.

We walk through the Four Streams of Leadership—reservoir, downstream, upstream, and side stream—and show how leadership is a continuous flow. Reservoir is self-management: values, habits, and the reflection that keeps you steady under pressure. Downstream is team and operations: assembling roles, setting standards, and maintaining momentum. Upstream is partnering with your boss and senior leaders: aligning priorities and preventing strategic drift. Side stream is collaborating with peers: building shared commitments and removing cross-team friction. When each stream runs clean, you move faster with fewer surprises.• reframing the Peter Principle as unpreparedness• replacing stories with explanatory frameworks and exercises• defining the four streams: reservoir, downstream, upstream, side stream• building a culture that holds when we are absent• habits to fill the reservoir: reading, audiobooks, feedback loops• composing teams with visionaries, implementers, and closers• interviewing for role fit through consistent depth• timing process for discovery versus reliability• making disagreement and commitment possible with a clear why• further reading influences: Popper, Feynman, Deutsch• where to learn more and get the bookHiring and team design get specific through three vital roles: visionaries who define the problem and direction, implementers who build the thing, and closers who ship it. Too many visionaries means swirl; too few closers means value never lands. We share interviewing tactics that probe for consistent depth across envisioning, building, and finishing, so you can place people where they thrive. Then we tackle the third rail—process. Early on, heavy process kills discovery; after product-market fit, light process kills reliability. We map the why, when, what, and how of process so your team can innovate without chaos and deliver without drift. Along the way, we unpack “disagree and commit” the right way: explain the why, or you'll get “disagree and resent.”If you're ready to trade fables for frameworks and build a culture that acts the right way when you're not in the room, this conversation is your field guide. Subscribe, share with a manager who just took the leap, and leave a quick review to tell us which framework you'll try first.

"What is Truth?", said jesting podcasters, who then stuck around for an answer. Back at it again with The Conjectures and Refutations Series (part three) on Chapter 10: Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Can we say what truth is, even if we can never be certain we've found it? If not, can we say that science is approaching truth? How would we ever know? And why are so many theories of truth untrue? We discuss Ben's early reflections on Abigail Shrier's book Bad Therapy Why did Popper feel the need to answer this particular "what is" question? Can asking "what is truth" be a demogogic and bad-faith question? The correspondence theory of truth vs The pragmatic theory of truth vs The coherence theory of truth Alfred Tarski's formalization of the correspondence theory of truth Are there problems with the correspondence theory? The disagreement between Vaden and Deutsch on truth References Daniel Bonevac on the Correspondence theory of truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlG_VaN1LHQ Tarki's 1944 paper on the semantic conception of truth Tarki's 1933 paper "On the concept of truth in formalized languages" Deutsch's 2022 talk on truth: Musings about Truth # 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. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube It would be both useful, coherent, and correspond to our happiness if you signed up for our patreon or discord. Hit us up at incrementspodcast@gmail.com

Daniel Popper joins Matt “Money” Smith to break down the Chargers' coordinator hires, what Chris O'Leary brings defensively, how Mike McDaniel can elevate Justin Herbert, and the biggest roster questions heading into free agency and the draft. 0:00 – Welcome + Daniel Popper Joins the Show 2:10 – Chargers Hire Chris O'Leary as DC 5:00 – O'Leary's Jesse Minter Roots 8:40 – Defensive Scheme Continuity Explained 12:30 – How Derwin James Shapes the Defense 16:15 – Is Hiring a First-Time DC a Gamble? 20:40 – Why Continuity Was the Chargers' Smart Play 24:30 – Mike McDaniel's Offensive Vision 28:45 – Fixing the Justin Herbert Problem 33:20 – Creating Easy Throws & Offensive Rhythm 38:10 – Why the Old Offense Failed in Big Games 42:30 – Free Agency Priorities for the Chargers 46:10 – Zion Johnson Contract Debate 51:30 – Interior Offensive Line Concerns 56:40 – Draft vs Free Agency Strategy 1:01:30 – Edge Rushers & Defensive Investments 1:06:15 – Cornerback Needs & Draft Options 1:11:00 – Linebacker Room Outlook 1:14:40 – Tight End Room Questions 1:18:20 – Running Back Fit in McDaniel's Scheme 1:22:10 – Ladd McConkey's Role Going Forward 1:25:30 – WR Room Construction & Speed Needs 1:29:40 – Special Teams & Roster Depth 1:33:00 – What the Chargers Must Do to Win Now 1:36:45 – Final Thoughts on the Chargers' Offseason Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Le paradoxe de la tolérance est un concept formulé par le philosophe Karl Popper en 1945 dans son ouvrage La Société ouverte et ses ennemis. Il pose une question dérangeante mais essentielle : une société totalement tolérante peut-elle survivre si elle tolère aussi l'intolérance ? La réponse de Popper est non.À première vue, la tolérance semble être une valeur absolue. Plus une société tolère d'opinions, de modes de vie et de croyances, plus elle paraît libre et ouverte. Mais Popper observe qu'une tolérance illimitée contient en elle-même une fragilité. Si une société accepte sans limite les mouvements, idéologies ou groupes qui prônent l'intolérance, alors ces derniers peuvent utiliser les libertés offertes pour détruire précisément ce cadre tolérant.C'est là le cœur du paradoxe : tolérer l'intolérance revient, à terme, à faire disparaître la tolérance elle-même.Popper ne parle pas d'interdire toute opinion choquante ou dérangeante. Il distingue clairement deux situations. Tant que les idées intolérantes restent dans le domaine du débat, de l'argumentation et de l'expression pacifique, elles peuvent et doivent être combattues par la discussion, la critique et la confrontation rationnelle. La liberté d'expression reste primordiale.Le problème apparaît lorsque ces mouvements refusent le dialogue, rejettent le principe même du débat rationnel et recourent à la violence, à l'intimidation ou à la propagande massive pour imposer leurs idées. À ce stade, selon Popper, une société tolérante a le droit — et même le devoir — de se défendre.Cela peut sembler contradictoire : comment défendre la tolérance en devenant intolérant envers certains ? Popper répond que ce n'est pas une véritable intolérance, mais un acte de légitime défense morale et politique. De la même façon qu'une société interdit le meurtre sans être “intolérante envers les meurtriers”, elle peut interdire des mouvements qui cherchent à abolir les libertés fondamentales.Un exemple historique éclaire ce paradoxe : les régimes totalitaires du XXe siècle ont souvent accédé au pouvoir en utilisant les mécanismes démocratiques. Ils ont profité de la liberté d'organisation, d'expression et de vote pour ensuite supprimer ces mêmes libertés une fois installés.Le paradoxe de la tolérance ne fournit pas une règle simple, mais un avertissement. Il rappelle que la tolérance n'est pas l'absence de limites, mais un équilibre fragile entre ouverture et protection.En résumé, Popper nous dit que pour préserver une société libre, il faut accepter une idée inconfortable : la tolérance a besoin de frontières. Sans elles, elle risque de s'autodétruire. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

This week, Bruce looks at how much critical rationalists do—and do not—subject their proposed best theories to critical testing. Bruce wrestles with how we apply the tools of critical rationalism—fallibilism, argument/debate, the demarcation criteria, falsification, and so on—to our real world ideas about economics, politics, and other issues.To do this, Bruce asks these question: Isn't economics famously difficult, or even impossible, to test? Does that mean it is a metaphysical theory? Doesn't Popper's famous demarcation criteria force us to accept that label? And what about Praxeology and Anarcho Capitalism?⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠

Comparing Kuhn and Popper on Quantum Theory: Here we go deeper into the differences between Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn's account of how science moves from one theory to another. David applies the theory set out in part 1 of this chapter to the specific case of quantum theory. Did social forces have a major impact on whether quantum theory was adopted as Kuhn would have it, or were rational factors like argument and experiment crucial in dictating how science broadly, physics and the community of physicists took on a new "counter-cultural" idea?

Le principe de réfutabilité est l'une des idées les plus célèbres — et les plus mal comprises — de la philosophie des sciences. Il a été formulé au XXᵉ siècle par le philosophe Karl Popper, avec une ambition claire : définir ce qui distingue une théorie scientifique d'un discours qui ne l'est pas.À première vue, la science semble reposer sur la preuve. On pourrait croire qu'une théorie est scientifique parce qu'elle est confirmée par des expériences. Or, Popper renverse totalement cette intuition. Selon lui, aucune théorie scientifique ne peut jamais être définitivement prouvée vraie. Pourquoi ? Parce qu'une infinité d'observations positives ne garantit jamais que la prochaine ne viendra pas la contredire. En revanche, une seule observation contraire suffit à invalider une théorie.C'est là qu'intervient le principe de réfutabilité. Pour Popper, une théorie est scientifique si et seulement si elle peut, en principe, être réfutée par les faits. Autrement dit, elle doit faire des prédictions suffisamment précises pour qu'on puisse imaginer une expérience ou une observation qui la rende fausse. Si aucune observation possible ne peut la contredire, alors elle sort du champ de la science.Un exemple classique permet de comprendre. L'énoncé « tous les cygnes sont blancs » est réfutable : il suffit d'observer un seul cygne noir pour le contredire. À l'inverse, une affirmation comme « des forces invisibles et indétectables influencent secrètement le monde » n'est pas réfutable, puisqu'aucune observation ne peut la mettre en défaut. Elle peut être intéressante sur le plan philosophique ou symbolique, mais elle n'est pas scientifique.Popper utilise ce critère pour critiquer certaines théories très populaires à son époque, comme la psychanalyse ou certaines formes de marxisme. Selon lui, ces systèmes expliquent tout a posteriori, mais ne prennent jamais le risque d'être démentis par les faits. Quand une prédiction échoue, l'explication est ajustée, ce qui rend la théorie indestructible… et donc non scientifique.Ce point est fondamental : pour Popper, la science progresse par erreurs corrigées, non par accumulation de certitudes. Une bonne théorie n'est pas celle qui se protège contre la critique, mais celle qui s'expose volontairement à la possibilité d'être fausse. Plus une théorie est risquée, plus elle est scientifique.Aujourd'hui encore, le principe de réfutabilité structure la méthode scientifique moderne. Il rappelle que la science n'est pas un ensemble de vérités absolues, mais un processus critique permanent. Une théorie n'est jamais vraie pour toujours ; elle est simplement la meilleure disponible, tant qu'elle résiste aux tentatives de réfutation.En résumé, le principe de réfutabilité de Popper nous apprend une chose essentielle : en science, le doute n'est pas une faiblesse, c'est une condition de progrès. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Le principe de réfutabilité est l'une des idées les plus célèbres — et les plus mal comprises — de la philosophie des sciences. Il a été formulé au XXᵉ siècle par le philosophe Karl Popper, avec une ambition claire : définir ce qui distingue une théorie scientifique d'un discours qui ne l'est pas.À première vue, la science semble reposer sur la preuve. On pourrait croire qu'une théorie est scientifique parce qu'elle est confirmée par des expériences. Or, Popper renverse totalement cette intuition. Selon lui, aucune théorie scientifique ne peut jamais être définitivement prouvée vraie. Pourquoi ? Parce qu'une infinité d'observations positives ne garantit jamais que la prochaine ne viendra pas la contredire. En revanche, une seule observation contraire suffit à invalider une théorie.C'est là qu'intervient le principe de réfutabilité. Pour Popper, une théorie est scientifique si et seulement si elle peut, en principe, être réfutée par les faits. Autrement dit, elle doit faire des prédictions suffisamment précises pour qu'on puisse imaginer une expérience ou une observation qui la rende fausse. Si aucune observation possible ne peut la contredire, alors elle sort du champ de la science.Un exemple classique permet de comprendre. L'énoncé « tous les cygnes sont blancs » est réfutable : il suffit d'observer un seul cygne noir pour le contredire. À l'inverse, une affirmation comme « des forces invisibles et indétectables influencent secrètement le monde » n'est pas réfutable, puisqu'aucune observation ne peut la mettre en défaut. Elle peut être intéressante sur le plan philosophique ou symbolique, mais elle n'est pas scientifique.Popper utilise ce critère pour critiquer certaines théories très populaires à son époque, comme la psychanalyse ou certaines formes de marxisme. Selon lui, ces systèmes expliquent tout a posteriori, mais ne prennent jamais le risque d'être démentis par les faits. Quand une prédiction échoue, l'explication est ajustée, ce qui rend la théorie indestructible… et donc non scientifique.Ce point est fondamental : pour Popper, la science progresse par erreurs corrigées, non par accumulation de certitudes. Une bonne théorie n'est pas celle qui se protège contre la critique, mais celle qui s'expose volontairement à la possibilité d'être fausse. Plus une théorie est risquée, plus elle est scientifique.Aujourd'hui encore, le principe de réfutabilité structure la méthode scientifique moderne. Il rappelle que la science n'est pas un ensemble de vérités absolues, mais un processus critique permanent. Une théorie n'est jamais vraie pour toujours ; elle est simplement la meilleure disponible, tant qu'elle résiste aux tentatives de réfutation.En résumé, le principe de réfutabilité de Popper nous apprend une chose essentielle : en science, le doute n'est pas une faiblesse, c'est une condition de progrès. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

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

Here Bruce starts with Popper's assertion that theories are 100x more valuable than concepts and compares it to Douglas Hofstadter's ideas on creativity and consciousness. But if concepts matter so little, where do conjectures originate? Popper offers little on this point, yet Hofstadter's view of the human mind as a system of self-referential feedback loops—able to bridge gaps that formal logic cannot—may provide a useful way to think about it.And while we're at it, let's poke at one of the CritRats' sacred cows: is it actually the case that observations have no role other than helping us pick between rival theories?⁠⁠Support us on Patreon

What is a concept? What is a theory? And was Karl Popper right when he said theories are “100 times more valuable” than concepts? But where do conjectures come from?We go over Popper's own writing about concepts and his explanation for why he feels they are less valuable than theories. Does this prove Bruce wrong from back in episode 112 where he claimed concepts are more valuable than words? What would Popper say?

Chargers beat reporter for the Athletic Daniel Popper joins the WIP Afternoon Show to discuss the Chargers ahead of their game tonight with the Eagles!

Hey, Heal Squad! We're back with Part 2 of our deep dive into all things skin with the one and only Dr. Sandra Lee (aka Dr. Pimple Popper) and this one is for everyone who's ever stared at a mirror wondering: Should I pop this? Dr. Lee answers all your burning skincare questions, starting with Accutane: does it still work, who should take it, and what you need to know before considering it. She also breaks down the safest way to pop a pimple (yes, there is one!) and what to never touch on your own. From blackheads, cysts, and backne to ingrown hairs and extractions, Dr. Pimple Popper explains what's really going on under your skin , and the smart, dermatologist-approved ways to handle it. She even shares the tools and tricks she personally recommends for gentle, effective care. If you've ever wanted a masterclass in healthy skin, this is your guide for healing your skin the right way! HEALERS & HEAL-LINERS:  There's a right way to pop a pimple. Dr. Lee shares her dermatologist-approved method for safe extractions, including when to pop, when to stop, and how to keep your skin calm afterward. Not every bump is a breakout. From cysts to ingrown hairs and “backne,” Dr. Lee helps us understand what's really happening under the skin, and how to tell if it's something that needs a doctor's attention. Less picking, more patience. She breaks down the do's and don'ts of extractions, reminding us that prevention, not pressure, is the key to clear, scar-free skin. -- HEAL SQUAD SOCIALS IG: https://www.instagram.com/healsquad/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@healsquadxmaria HEAL SQUAD RESOURCES: Heal Squad Website:https://www.healsquad.com/ Heal Squad x Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/HealSquad/membership Maria Menounos Website: https://www.mariamenounos.com My Curated Macy's Page: Shop My Macy's Storefront EMR-Tek Red Light: https://emr-tek.com/discount/Maria30 for 30% off Airbnb: https://www.airbnb.com/  Briotech: https://shopbriotech.com/ Use Code: HEALSQUAD for 20% off  Join In-Person Heal Retreat Waitlist! https://mariamenounos.myflodesk.com/heal-retreat-waitlist GUEST RESOURCES:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drpimplepopper/?hl=en  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgrsF4TYwmrV0QsXb8AoeHQ  Website: https://drpimplepopper.com/  SLMD Skincare: https://slmdskincare.com/  Show: https://www.mylifetime.com/shows/dr-pimple-popper-breaking-out  ABOUT MARIA MENOUNOS: Emmy Award-winning journalist, TV personality, actress, 2x NYT best-selling author, former pro-wrestler and brain tumor survivor, Maria Menounos' passion is to see others heal and to get better in all areas of life. ABOUT HEAL SQUAD x MARIA MENOUNOS: A daily digital talk-show that brings you the world's leading healers, experts, and celebrities to share groundbreaking secrets and tips to getting better in all areas of life. DISCLAIMER: This Podcast and all related content (published or distributed by or on behalf of Maria Menounos or http://Mariamenounos.com and http://healsquad.com) is for informational purposes only and may include information that is general in nature and that is not specific to you. Any information or opinions provided by guest experts or hosts featured within website or on Company's Podcast are their own; not those of Maria Menounos or the Company. Accordingly, Maria Menounos and the Company cannot be responsible for any results or consequences or actions you may take based on such information or opinions. This podcast is presented for exploratory purposes only. Published content is not intended to be used for preventing, diagnosing, or treating a specific illness. If you have, or suspect you may have, a health-care emergency, please contact a qualified health care professional for treatment.

Hey, Heal Squad! It's a spooktacular week, and we're talking about something that haunts us all… pimples! Yep, nothing's scarier than a breakout right before an event, but have no fear, because Dr. Sandra Lee (aka Dr. Pimple Popper) is here to help us face our skin fears once and for all. In this episode, Dr. Lee and Maria dive into what's really behind acne, and spoiler: it's not just stress or skincare, it's your hormones. She breaks down the science behind breakouts, how to tell the difference between whiteheads, blackheads, and cysts, and what actually works when it comes to treating them. They also unpack why acne scars are so hard to treat, the truth about popular products like Retin-A and benzoyl peroxide, and why you don't need to spend thousands to heal your skin. It's everything you wish your skincare routine came with: real answers and zero judgment.

Living out mid-life, trying to avoid the "crisis" part, building a business, and finding purpose. And YES a skincare discussion, too. Bethenny sits down with Dr. Sandra Lee aka Dr. Pimple Popper and Founder of SLMD Skincare.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.