Podcasts about social epistemology

I denne episode af Rig på viden diskuterer stifter af Econroots og professor Mieke Meurs samspillet mellem politik og pristeori.Show notes:In today's episode we challenge mainstream economics from some heterodox perspectives, particularly feminist economics. Professor Mieke Meurs particularly critiques neoclassical price theory, the interplay between policy-making and the public, and how we should teach these aspects. We go on to talk about the issue of predicting of cost in extreme cases, such as climate change, as well as whether GDP captures welfare. We end the inspiring talk on issues related to family choice and cultural preferences. References:Anderson, E. (2012). Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2011.652211Gornick, J. C., Meyers, M. K., Heymann, J., & Beem, C. (2004). Supporting a dual-earner/dual-carer society: Policy lessons from abroad. A Democracy that Works: The Public Dimensions of the Work and Family Debate.The value of everything: Making and taking in the global economy. (2018). Mariana Mazzucato. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780241188828/the-value-of-everythingThe entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. (2013). Mariana Mazzucato. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780857282521/the-entrepreneurial-stateThe value of everything: Making and taking in the global economy. (2018). Mariana Mazzucato. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780241188828/the-value-of-everythingThe entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. (2013). Mariana Mazzucato. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780857282521/the-entrepreneurial-stateFølg os på LinkedIn:André: www.linkedin.com/in/andréthormann/Rig på viden: https://www.linkedin.com/company/rig-paa-viden/?viewAsMember=trueIntro musik:Deadly Roulette by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3625-deadly-rouletteLicense: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ References:· Cannon, M. F. (2023). Recovery: A Guide to Reforming the US Health Sector. Cato Institute.· Cannon, M. F., & Tanner, M. D. (2007). Healthy competition: What's holding back health care and how to free it. Cato Institute.

Josh and M comment on the first two chapters (of six) of Neil Levy's book "Bad Beliefs." Does Neil have bad beliefs about bad beliefs, and do Josh and M have bad beliefs about Neil's supposed bad beliefs which are to be be found in the book "Bad Beliefs"? Listen and find out!

In this episode, we discuss objectivity and disinterestedness in science. We talk about norms, values, interests, and objectivity in research practice, peer review, and hiring decisions. Is it possible to be completely objective? Is objectivity a feature of epistemic products or epistemic processes? And most importantly, how would you objectively rate this podcast?   Shownotes Armstrong, J. S. (1979). Advocacy and objectivity in science. Management Science, 25(5), 423–428. Declaration of Interest by Stephen Senn: http://senns.uk/Declaration_Interest.htm Djørup, S., & Kappel, K. (2013). The norm of disinterestedness in science; a restorative analysis. SATS, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2013-0009 Elliott, K. C. (2017). A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001 Feyerabend, Paul. "How to defend society against science." Philosophy: Basic Readings (1975): 261-271. Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19231–19236. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116 Janack, M. (2002). Dilemmas of objectivity. Social Epistemology, 16(3), 267-281. John, S. (2021). Objectivity in science. Cambridge University Press. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press. Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094423 Mitroff, I. I. (1974). The subjective side of science: A philosophical inquiry into the psychology of the Apollo moon scientists (First Edition). Elsevier. A Russian polar researcher has been charged trying to stab a colleague to death at a remote Antarctic base https://www.businessinsider.com/sergey-savitsky-alleged-attempted-murder-at-antarctic-bellingshausen-2018-10  Stamenkovic, P. (2023). Facts and objectivity in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807  

Steve Fuller, PhD, graduated from Columbia University in History & Sociology before gaining a Masters in Philosophy from Cambridge and a PhD from Pittsburgh in History and the Philosophy of Science. He currently holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, UK He is the author of 26 books and numerous academic papers.  for two full episodes a month and exclusive content please visit patreon.com/thenickbryantpodcast Welcome to the Machine: Onwards to Transhumanism with Dr. Steve Fuller | The Nick Bryant Podcast https://youtu.be/r1SrIIfsp48 nickbryantnyc.com epstienjustice.com

Philosopher Dr. Émile P. Torres & sociologist Prof. Steve Fuller share their thoughts on the history of human extinction, how apocalyptic narratives inform culture, and what it means to live in the end times. Émile P. Torres is a philosopher whose research focuses on existential threats to civilization and humanity. They have published widely in the popular press and scholarly journals, with articles appearing in the Washington Post, Aeon, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Metaphilosophy, Inquiry, Erkenntnis, and Futures. Prof. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is the author of more than twenty books. From 2011 to 2014 he published three books with Palgrave on 'Humanity 2.0'. His most recent book is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of Transhuman Era (Schwabe Verlag, 2020). Find out more: http://futurespodcast.net  ABOUT THE HOST Luke Robert Mason is a British-born futures theorist who is passionate about engaging the public with emerging scientific theories and technological developments. He hosts documentaries for Futurism, and has contributed to BBC Radio, BBC One, The Guardian, Discovery Channel, VICE Motherboard and Wired Magazine. CREDITS Producer & Host: Luke Robert Mason Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @FUTURESPodcast Follow Luke Robert Mason on Twitter at @LukeRobertMason Subscribe & Support the Podcast at http://futurespodcast.net

Transhumanists Elise Bohan, Prof. Steve Fuller and Anders Sandberg share their thoughts on the future of humanity, the role artificial intelligence will play in society, and the radical ways advanced technology may redefine what it means to be human. Recorded in front of a live audience at Kings Place, London on 16 February 2023. Elise Bohan is a Senior Research Scholar at the University of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute (FHI). She holds a PhD in evolutionary macrohistory, wrote the world's first book-length history of transhumanism as a doctoral student, and recently launched her debut book Future Superhuman: Our transhuman lives in a make-or-break century (NewSouth, 2022). Prof. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is the author of more than twenty books. From 2011 to 2014 he published three books with Palgrave on ‘Humanity 2.0'. His most recent book is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of Transhuman Era (Schwabe Verlag, 2020). Anders Sandberg is a Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) at Oxford University where his research focuses on the societal and ethical issues surrounding human enhancement and new technologies. He is also research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics. Find out more: futurespodcast.net FOLLOW Twitter: twitter.com/futurespodcast Instagram: instagram.com/futurespodcast Facebook: facebook.com/futurespodcast ABOUT THE HOST Luke Robert Mason is a British-born futures theorist who is passionate about engaging the public with emerging scientific theories and technological developments. He hosts documentaries for Futurism, and has contributed to BBC Radio, BBC One, The Guardian, Discovery Channel, VICE Motherboard and Wired Magazine. Follow him on Twitter: twitter.com/lukerobertmason CREDITS Produced by FUTURES Podcast Recorded, Mixed & Edited by Luke Robert Mason

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Catarina Dutilh Novaes is Professor and University Research Chair at the Department of Philosophy of the VU Amsterdam. She is also a Professorial Fellow at Arché in St. Andrews (2019-2024). She is currently running the ERC Consolidator project 'The Social Epistemology of Argumentation' (2018-2023). Her main fields of research are history and philosophy of logic, philosophy of mathematics, and social epistemology. In this episode, we talk about argumentation, reason, and disinformation. We start with argumentation, and discuss what is it and what it is for; the contexts it applies to; what is a valid argument; adversariality; the role of trust; argumentation as a social phenomenon, and disagreements with Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber; the social epistemology of argumentation; and we also discuss if argumentation changes minds. We then talk about reason, and a disagreement with Mercier's and Sperber's modular nature of reason. Finally, we discuss disinformation, and if it is a new phenomenon. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, OLAF ALEX, JONATHAN VISSER, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, MIKKEL STORMYR, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, 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, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, MORTEN EIKELAND, DANIEL FRIEDMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ANTON ERIKSSON, CHARLES MOREY, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, PEDRO BONILLA, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, STARRY, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, TOM ROTH, THERPMD, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, RICHARD BOWEN, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, CHRIS STORY, AND MANUEL OLIVEIRA! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, ROBERT LEWIS, AND AL NICK ORTIZ! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND BOGDAN KANIVETS!

The Internet plays a central role in how we communicate, share information, disseminate ideas, maintain social connections, and conduct business. The Internet also exacerbates existing problems regarding irrationality, bias, wrongful discrimination, exploitation, and dehumanization. Moreover, the Internet gives rise to new ethical and epistemological problems – fake news, sock-puppetry, internet hoaxes, disinformation, and so on. In Who Should We Be Online?: A Social Epistemology for the Internet (Oxford University Press 2023), Karen Frost-Arnold proposes a multi-layered social epistemology designed to assist us in navigating the fraught normative landscape of the online world. Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Internet plays a central role in how we communicate, share information, disseminate ideas, maintain social connections, and conduct business. The Internet also exacerbates existing problems regarding irrationality, bias, wrongful discrimination, exploitation, and dehumanization. Moreover, the Internet gives rise to new ethical and epistemological problems – fake news, sock-puppetry, internet hoaxes, disinformation, and so on. In Who Should We Be Online?: A Social Epistemology for the Internet (Oxford University Press 2023), Karen Frost-Arnold proposes a multi-layered social epistemology designed to assist us in navigating the fraught normative landscape of the online world. Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/philosophy

The Internet plays a central role in how we communicate, share information, disseminate ideas, maintain social connections, and conduct business. The Internet also exacerbates existing problems regarding irrationality, bias, wrongful discrimination, exploitation, and dehumanization. Moreover, the Internet gives rise to new ethical and epistemological problems – fake news, sock-puppetry, internet hoaxes, disinformation, and so on. In Who Should We Be Online?: A Social Epistemology for the Internet (Oxford University Press 2023), Karen Frost-Arnold proposes a multi-layered social epistemology designed to assist us in navigating the fraught normative landscape of the online world. Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

The Internet plays a central role in how we communicate, share information, disseminate ideas, maintain social connections, and conduct business. The Internet also exacerbates existing problems regarding irrationality, bias, wrongful discrimination, exploitation, and dehumanization. Moreover, the Internet gives rise to new ethical and epistemological problems – fake news, sock-puppetry, internet hoaxes, disinformation, and so on. In Who Should We Be Online?: A Social Epistemology for the Internet (Oxford University Press 2023), Karen Frost-Arnold proposes a multi-layered social epistemology designed to assist us in navigating the fraught normative landscape of the online world. Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

The Internet plays a central role in how we communicate, share information, disseminate ideas, maintain social connections, and conduct business. The Internet also exacerbates existing problems regarding irrationality, bias, wrongful discrimination, exploitation, and dehumanization. Moreover, the Internet gives rise to new ethical and epistemological problems – fake news, sock-puppetry, internet hoaxes, disinformation, and so on. In Who Should We Be Online?: A Social Epistemology for the Internet (Oxford University Press 2023), Karen Frost-Arnold proposes a multi-layered social epistemology designed to assist us in navigating the fraught normative landscape of the online world. Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

The Internet plays a central role in how we communicate, share information, disseminate ideas, maintain social connections, and conduct business. The Internet also exacerbates existing problems regarding irrationality, bias, wrongful discrimination, exploitation, and dehumanization. Moreover, the Internet gives rise to new ethical and epistemological problems – fake news, sock-puppetry, internet hoaxes, disinformation, and so on. In Who Should We Be Online?: A Social Epistemology for the Internet (Oxford University Press 2023), Karen Frost-Arnold proposes a multi-layered social epistemology designed to assist us in navigating the fraught normative landscape of the online world. Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

The Internet plays a central role in how we communicate, share information, disseminate ideas, maintain social connections, and conduct business. The Internet also exacerbates existing problems regarding irrationality, bias, wrongful discrimination, exploitation, and dehumanization. Moreover, the Internet gives rise to new ethical and epistemological problems – fake news, sock-puppetry, internet hoaxes, disinformation, and so on. In Who Should We Be Online?: A Social Epistemology for the Internet (Oxford University Press 2023), Karen Frost-Arnold proposes a multi-layered social epistemology designed to assist us in navigating the fraught normative landscape of the online world. Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

The Internet plays a central role in how we communicate, share information, disseminate ideas, maintain social connections, and conduct business. The Internet also exacerbates existing problems regarding irrationality, bias, wrongful discrimination, exploitation, and dehumanization. Moreover, the Internet gives rise to new ethical and epistemological problems – fake news, sock-puppetry, internet hoaxes, disinformation, and so on. In Who Should We Be Online?: A Social Epistemology for the Internet (Oxford University Press 2023), Karen Frost-Arnold proposes a multi-layered social epistemology designed to assist us in navigating the fraught normative landscape of the online world. Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University.

I often write about the need for Up Wing thinking. Despite the political drama that unfolds on cable news and social media, the key divide in America is not Left versus Right but Up versus Down. Up Wingers are all about acceleration for solving big problems, effectively tackling new ones, and creating maximum opportunity for all Americans. Down Wingers, on the other hand, are soaked in nostalgia, scarcity, and risk minimization. In this episode, I'm joined by Steve Fuller to discuss the political implications of Up Wing and Down Wing thinking.Steve holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick's Department of Sociology. He's the author of several books, including 2014's The Proactionary Imperative.In This Episode* Up-Wing versus Down-Wing thinking (1:25)* America's emerging Down-Wing coalition (9:45)* Towards an Up-Wing environmentalism (18:54)* Up-Wing politics and risk (25:31)* How Up Wingers should think of Elon Musk (31:30)Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.Up-Wing versus Down-Wing thinkingJames Pethokoukis: In 1973, almost 50 years ago, the futurist F.M. Esfandiary wrote the book Up-Wingers: A Futurist Manifesto, where he posited a new political axis, where future-oriented Up Wingers and more traditionalist Down Wingers would replace the existing Left Wing-Right Wing axis. You've also framed this as Green — meaning traditional environmentalist — versus Black — the sky is the limit, perhaps space is the limit.I wonder if you could just speak for a moment or two about the tenets of being Up Wing or on the Black pole versus Down Wing, Green pole. What does that look like in the modern political environment?Steve Fuller: I think the first thing to say, given that you started with Esfandiary, who's known as FM-2030 to his fans in transhumanism, is that the book Up-Wingers actually only talked about Up Wingers but didn't talk about Down Wingers, because he was an incredibly optimistic guy, you might say. What he was really arguing in that book back in the ‘70s was that the Left-Right political axis would just be replaced by Up Wingers. There wouldn't be Down Wingers. That's an interesting aspect of what was going on back then in the ‘70s. And in fact, what he thought about as so-called “black sky thinking” — which is what you were alluding to in your question about Black being the kind of signal color for Up Wingers — he was actually talking about something rather close to the kind of internet that we have now, basically. Especially in terms of the personalized aspects of it: social media, the world-wide web, all of this kind of stuff. That was kind of what he was getting at. He wasn't really getting at some of the more profound things that I would say is now part of the political landscape in the contemporary world, which in a way makes the Up Winger or Down Winger distinction a much more visible distinction and much more salient than it was back 50 years ago.Now, I think there is an Up Wing or Down Wing distinction in a very clear kind of way. I'm the one who kind of brings in the Down Wing aspect of this. And so as you said in your introductory remarks, at least in the European political spectrum, Red means Left and Blue means Right. Whereas I understand the United States these days, with the way the states get mapped, it's the other way around. But the point is, in any case, that color scheme is gone. And what we instead have is Black versus Green. The idea of Black for the Up Wingers is that the sky is the limit. You're imagining sort of the “black sky” kind of thing. That's the stellar cosmos color. Whereas the Down Wingers are Green in the sense that they basically want human beings to be planted on Earth. It's a very Earth orientation. It is a sky versus Earth thing in a way, Up Wing or Down Wing, in the way I'm talking about it.The interesting thing about this distinction, as I think it plays out now, is that it shows a fundamental instability, you might say, in the concept of the human. Insofar as we've thought about social life and political life as revolving around humanity — how to organize humanity, what humanity is about, and so forth — we generally have had a kind of common understanding of what a human being is. And that's, roughly speaking, homo sapiens. Homo sapiens, in a way, provides a kind of outer limit to what we think about as a human. But now, with a lot of things going on — not just the stuff that has to do with information technology, where we can perhaps upload our consciousness or merge with machines in some way, even in some kind of Elon Musk-Neuralink fashion where we become cyborgs in a sense — it's not just that that's going on: There are all these potential biological transformations, biomedical transformations, which in a way could really destabilize even the biological nature of the human being. For example: human beings living indefinitely. All of that stuff would have incredible knock-on effects with regard to how we organize our social and political life, which to a large extent depends on the idea that human beings are more or less upright apes who live a finite period of time and then they succeed to another generation. Up Wingers are, in a sense, open to everything like this. It kind of explodes the category of the human, and that's why the term “transhumanism” is an appropriate term for those people, because they want to transcend the limits of the human.The Down Wingers take the exact opposite view and think the Up Wingers are completely dangerous. The [Down] Wingers think that, if anything, the problems that we have now on Earth — let's say the climate issues, but also even maybe the pandemic issue and so forth — have to do with the extent to which humans have overextended themselves on the planet. They don't know their limits. And in some sense, what human beings need to do is not to think that we're somehow above animals and nature, but rather to return, as it were, to our natural origins. And that homo sapiens may not be so special after all, and that our survival may depend on our having a more modest understanding of what our nature is. The Down Wingers basically want to get us down there. That's why these people like to talk about the precautionary principle, for example, which is to say that when you introduce any innovations or whatever, you minimize risk. You do no harm. It's like a Hippocratic Oath for the Earth. This is a view that has a lot of prominence these days. This view is even called “post-humanist,” because, in a sense, it wants to minimize the significance of the human in order to return to something that is a more stable, Earthly existence. So this is where the polarities are: some want to go into the skies and some want to really implant themselves on the Earth.In the book 50 years ago, Down Wing was not mentioned, yet it seems as though that view, broadly speaking — concerns about scarcity, about limits, thinking going to space would be a waste of money, also looking at technological stagnation over the past half century — it seems like even though Down Wing was not mentioned, Down Wing has been winning and has been the dominant ethos.I think there's a certain truth to that. I think the Silicon Valley people are very attuned to this point. Peter Thiel, I suppose, would be the main one who talks about the great technological stagnation that's been taking place over the past 50 years. I think he's basically right, and probably for the kinds of reasons you've just cited: that there has been this kind of latent Down Winger tendency. But I think, in a way, it has converged in very interesting ways with other kinds of movements in recent years to make it stronger so that it becomes a kind of social justice movement. It is no longer just purely about ecologists, environmentalists in the narrow sense; but rather, it has this much broader sense, because if one thinks about who would be most vulnerable to any kind of climate catastrophe or something like that, then one starts to bring in the developing world, the poor, the people who are already kind of unprotected. This gets then rolled into a very large social justice agenda, which then makes the Down Wing movement much more powerful, you might say, than it would've appeared 50 years ago.America's emerging Down-Wing coalitionWhat led me to some of your writings was really the 2016 election here in the United States, when you had this weird phenomenon of people who supported Bernie Sanders, but when he did not win the Democratic nomination said, “Then maybe we'll support Donald Trump.” At first, that seems crazy. But if you start to look at things with an Up Wing versus Down Wing perspective, it begins to make a little bit of sense. Do you see this sort of merging of the populists of the left and right coming together and making this scenario maybe actually happen?Yes, actually, I do. This is where I think the Democratic Party is really in a very tight, difficult situation, to be perfectly honest. If we're talking about the establishment of the Democratic Party, it's still very much on the sort of Hillary Clinton, technocratic, broadly Up Winger, you might say, way. And Bernie Sanders was just seen as a throwback to the past. If you're Hillary Clinton, you're basically planning for all of that rust belt stuff, all of that kind of traditional working-class thing, to disappear over time. I think that's the scenario. But of course, the point about Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is in a way to keep the consciousness of the working class kind of alive. And this sort of populism isn't going to go away. To be honest with you, nowadays there's a lot of inflammatory talk, especially in the United States, about fascism. But fascism, of course, fed on this kind of connection between basically working-class disenfranchised people, who in the past would've been voting on the left of the party, but then seeing the left somehow taking off into space and not really addressing their bread-and-butter concerns. And then some leader that might be called fascist actually galvanizes and organizes this group of people. It could happen. There are a lot of different kinds of ways in which the Down Winger thing can play itself out, because I do think the environmental aspect of this is also there. But then environmentalism also has a kind of connection with fascism, too, in a certain way. It's a very complicated story, and it plays itself differently in different countries. If we're talking about the United States, it's a bit different than if we're talking about Europe.I see these Bernie Sanders-style populists on the left who are very skeptical of corporate power. And now we have conservative populists who also seem to be against big corporations. Both groups seem to hate Silicon Valley. There's also a lot of overlap on housing density. Yet on cultural issues like abortion, for example, these groups remain divided. Is that how you see it?I see that 100 percent. I don't know exactly what to do about it. It's a very strange situation. But I do think it does point to the fact that the conventional political parties are going to end up realigning at some point. In other words, they're both going to kind of break apart, not only in this country, but certainly in Britain, the same sort of thing is happening as well. There's an interesting thing about, what does politics look like under these circumstances? Because I think one of the things that contributes to the destabilization of people's finding a political home is the fact that the state — which typically was the thing that political parties were fighting over: control of the state and control over state power — the power that the state actually wields nowadays is diminishing.There are so many other players, as it were, that in a way have competing powers to the state and often can kind of prevent the state from doing various things, that then when people start thinking about political identity, this is why young people, for example, don't vote. Because they don't see anything in it for them, because they're not sure that getting one set of politicians or another set of politicians is going to actually mobilize enough power to actually get things done. And so I think that's also part of the background of this story; namely, that the state isn't something worth fighting for or fighting about anymore, in a certain way. It doesn't really anchor, as it were, the common political reality that people understand.This is also part of the world we live in, where we have so many different competing understandings of what's actually happening on the ground. And there is nothing terribly authoritative and establishment to sort of say, “No, actually this is happening. This is not happening.” So a lot of this kind of anchoring effect, this common ground stuff, that used to make actually being in one party or another party important is disappearing as well. And so this is why it all seems very blurry and people are just kind of moving around from place to place.A typical median voter in Great Britain or the United States, do you think they're fundamentally more of an Up Wing person or more of a Down Wing person?I think, generally speaking, they're Up Wing, actually. I think they're Up Wing if you ask them their attitudes towards stuff. But the problem is, when you put it all together as part of a political agenda, it often seems very threatening. And I think that's kind of the public relations problem that Up Wingers have. Because there are a lot of the actual things, like: Do you want to be able to live longer? Do you want innovative medicines that will be able to cure diseases that in the past, let's say, killed your parents or something? Everybody is for this. And everybody is for all kinds of technological solutions to solve all sorts of problems. People are actually for all this stuff. The problem is that when you add it all together, and then you look in a sense not simply at the economic cost — I don't think the economic cost is really the big deal here — but rather you think about what the implications would be for the kind of world we would live in if all of this wonderful stuff came together, and you see Up Wingers are very sensitive to the point that we would be in a different world. This wouldn't be a better version of the current world, but this would be a different kind of world. I think this is where it starts to seem scary to a lot of people when it's actually presented as a political package.I'll give you an example: There's this thing called telemedicine, which basically enables people to send in their symptoms, to look up stuff, and then they can have access to this amazing biomedical information base that would then enable them to get customized medicine in just the way they want. It would be a maximum use of the internet for purposes of healthcare. But of course, this would involve an unprecedented level of surveillance and violation of privacy. Especially if we're monitoring the effects of people who voluntarily decide to take certain kinds of experimental drugs and stuff. Everything they do would have to be monitored and checked. When you flesh out the picture of what the Up Wing view involves, then the opposition gets traction because they say, “So you're going to sell your privacy? Is that what you're going to do? And what are you selling it for? What, to take some experimental drugs that might not work and you might not even know what the side effects are?” And so it's quite easy, once you flesh out and you present the Up Winger program — as a program, not just as a set of isolated things you might want, but as an entire political program — it then becomes easy to enumerate the various implicit costs that this is going to have. And that's when you start to raise the fear factor in the electorate. “My privacy is going to be gone. This might be risky. Blah, blah, blah.” That's where we are. It's very hard to win elections when you're operating in that space.As you're suggesting, it's not an easy thing to poll with a public opinion survey. But I suppose if I was going to try to find a single question that might tell me where the public is, it might be nuclear energy. If you're for it, you're probably inherently more Up Wing. If you're against it, probably more Down Wing.This is true.Which means the public is pretty split.That's a good litmus test. Yes. It's the same thing in Europe, too. It's the same thing in Europe.Towards an Up-Wing environmentalismI sense that over the past year or two — I think it's because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and energy shortages, and I think a growing realization that all these climate goals are going to be very difficult to meet without nuclear energy — that people are specifically rethinking nuclear, but then maybe people are going to start rethinking, “Why are we even in this situation? Why do we not already have abundant clean power? What is this bill of goods that the environmental movement has been selling us for 50 years, that we're sitting here having to think about radically changing our lifestyles to meet some climate goal, that we have energy shortages in Europe when it was all entirely avoidable?”This is where it gets kind of interesting, because of course, nuclear is not risk free. I think this has always been the problem, especially in Europe. One thing you need to realize, especially if we're talking about the European Union, is that the European Union actually has the precautionary principle baked into a lot of its legislation. In other words, this minimization of risk is one of the things that, for example, makes it very difficult for biomedical innovations to actually get on stream in Europe. Environmental protection in Europe is incredibly high. For example: This enormous opposition to genetically modified organisms to put in the food system. All of this is very much to do with the precautionary principle being in there. The precautionary principle says above all “do no harm,” even if it means you do less good. That's going to be a killer for nuclear. The point is, yes, we could have had clean energy via nuclear many decades ago, but it would've also been risky. It was probably a risk worth taking, I would think. And I still think that now.But nevertheless, part of what's going on between the Up Wingers and the Down Wingers is basically the attitude toward risk. Because we can do a lot of amazing things right now if we're willing to absorb just a little bit more risk. This is a tough one for politicians, because politicians, at the end of the day… One way to think about what a politician is, in terms of serving their constituency, is protecting them. So if you are in a constituency where you've got a lot of eco-activists raising the alarm bells — if we put a nuclear reactor here, then your water will be poisoned, you'll have three-legged cats, whatever — how's a politician going to deal with that? Because there is a small chance that might happen. So it's a very tough sell. I think we could have had a much cleaner world by now if we were willing to take a little bit more risk with regard to things like nuclear and more experimental kinds of technologies. Even genetic modification, actually, in terms of our ability to adapt to climate change and stuff like that. And risk is one of the things that often makes the difference in terms of political debate. It ends up defining the limits of plausibility for what you can put forward as a policy.For some of the reasons I mentioned earlier, to me the environmental movement has been a very Down-Wing, limits-based movement. Do you sense that's changing because of the reality of trying to hit climate goals without technology? If there's anything we've learned during the pandemic and maybe with some of these energy shortages in Europe, it's that people do not like scarcity. They like abundance. They don't like shortages. And I'm wondering if that revelation is going to create a more Up-Wing aspect to the environmental movement.First of all, there are some Up-Wing environmental movements. One of them, I'm a fellow, is the Breakthrough Institute in California. And those guys have been on this ticket for a long time. But to be honest, their degree of success in getting the message across has been limited. And this has been true of other such movements — eco-modernist, as they're called, movements around the world. There is the issue of fear mongering. There's the fear element that is very difficult to deal with in political discourse. Once it gets unleashed, it's very hard to combat it. In the case of nuclear (and this is true, I would say, of a lot of this more progressive technology), if you look at the agencies that would be promoting it, obviously we would be talking about state, corporate, we would be talking pretty heavy players that would enable this kind of new technology to go on stream in a big way. And to a large extent, some of this technology is already available, but it's been prevented from actually coming on stream. The look of that to people who are already distrustful of all kinds of establishments and all kinds of authorities is not good. It's not a good look. If nuclear energy was something that could be promoted from a mom-and-pop store, it would probably be much more palatable. This is a basic kind of problem, the kind of general distrust. As you know, one of the things that has come about as a result of the pandemic is this efflorescence of conspiracy theories. And who's involved in the conspiracy theories? Well, big business, the state: all the kinds of big players who would, in fact, probably be among the supporters of nuclear among many other of these innovative technologies. The look of the sponsors does not create an aura of trust in a populace that is increasingly distrustful of authority. I think that's a real basic kind of public relations problem that this whole issue has to overcome. I'm not sure how you do it, but I think that's a much bigger issue than, let's say, making people aware of what the benefits of nuclear energy are.Up-Wing politics and riskDuring the pandemic we've learned something about the issue of trust in society. What do you think we've learned about the issue of risk tolerance in society? More people than I would've guessed are very risk averse.Yes, I think that's exactly right. It's an interesting picture. I think at some point, once the air has cleared on this matter, there needs to be a thorough cross-national comparison of the response to the pandemic. Nations of the world were all over the map on this in terms of the amount of social control they put on their citizenry and so forth. In that respect, it was a very interesting living experiment, the pandemic, because of the ways in which the different political systems responded to it. The state does have a lot of power in certain kinds of arenas like health. In a sense, the state shot itself in the foot by making people too risk averse. We have been living in a world where we've been promised that the risks are going to go away and that people are going to live longer, healthier lives forever. We've been expecting this kind of uninterrupted, upward trajectory, certainly since the end of the Second World War. Anything that might threaten that then becomes a source of fear. And if we lived in a world where we realized it's going to be a kind of bumpy ride up — death rates will vary; it's not that we're going to continue to minimize death rates, but they will vary, but in the appropriate direction over time — then people would be more tolerant of situations like pandemics, where eventually people do die more than normally die. Because the pandemic was so publicized, on a 24/7 basis you could compare the death rates of all the countries of the world simultaneously as if this was some kind of sporting league where you say, “Hey, these guys are on the top of the league. They got the fewest per capita dying today.” This is a nonsense way of managing a pandemic. It does make it look like, if you avoid death, if you avoid contamination, then you're winning. That then undermines the kind of mindset that is required for any kind of technological progress, which is much more risk seeking than that.I think that if we end up being able to cure or significantly reduce the incidence of some big key diseases, that would send a powerful message to people that technology is good. We can radically change our lives. And I wonder if something like that might really tip the scale.I think so, actually. The public relations side of all this should never be underestimated. I think you need a big win. The polio vaccine, right? You need something like that. It's not just that it works well, but that the coverage of it, the relevance of it, to large numbers of people is immediate. It's obvious. People could see it. They don't need to know how the polio vaccine works. If they know someone with polio, they understand immediately. This is the point: You need something that has that kind of level of public salience. I think people who think about this, think that is what's got to happen. How it's going to happen, where it's going to happen — it's not obvious. But clearly, from a public relations standpoint, if you want something that's going to make this kind of a gestalt switch so that people go from being risk averse to being risk seeking, you need a big win on something that a couple of years ago you wouldn't think was possible.If over the next 25 years, 50 years, we saw the precautionary principle replaced with a more risk-taking principle, what does that world look like?We could have a whole half hour on this topic. One of the things I think would be necessary is that people would be allowed, at the very least, to be able to volunteer for quite risky kinds of experiments through private contracts with scientists and others, where there is some mutual understanding that one understands the terms of agreement and so forth. And so there would probably have to be a kind of insurance agency around this for compensation when things go wrong. But what that would replace is the current system, the research ethics codes that apply universally and in a blanket fashion across research establishments, especially in academia, which ends up preventing effectively a priori any kind of risky research from happening because of the possibility of harm to the subjects, even if the subject would voluntarily enter into the research.And so that, I think, is a minimum requirement: that you would have to change the legal structure that at the moment prevents the risky stuff from being done. Because the problem is, the risky stuff does get done anyway. It gets done in China, these ethics-free zones. It gets done underground. Black market, all kinds of crazy stuff I'm sure is going on around the world at the moment, and we might even be able to learn from it. But as long as there is this kind of very prohibitionist mentality in the legal system, it is the great inhibitor. We really need to turn this into a much more contract system, not a kind of blanket ban on certain kinds of research. That would be the first step.How Up Wingers should think of Elon MuskHow should up wingers think about Elon Musk?If you're an Up Winger, and you're someone who in a way is all about taking risks and encouraging others to take risks, what better person to take a risk than a billionaire? In a sense, he's a very appropriate person to be an Up Winger. He can afford to lose. He's doing a lot of stuff. Some of it people might regard as crazy, but nevertheless, if public agencies were doing it, it would be a nightmare. But in some sense, a lot of the stuff that he's doing, you sort of believe someone ought to be doing it. And it's his money.When we talk about all these rich people, “What do they do with their money?” I think the idea of risking the money, or at least amounts of it, in these kinds of projects is not so bad, actually. There are a lot of worse things Elon Musk could be doing. This man could be causing an enormous amount of damage in the world. He might not be saving the world's poor. He might not be vaccinating them to death. But what he's doing is he's trying various kinds of experimental, innovative things that would be beyond the financial range of most states and individuals around the world. So I'm willing to tolerate him. This is the kind of guy who is in a position to really take risks. That's what I see him doing. Is it guaranteed he's going to succeed in any of this stuff? Most of his income comes from PayPal still! And he's using that to bankroll all the other stuff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

https://youtu.be/8CrbNNwirkI Have you ever watched in horror as someone systematically, deliberately makes every wrong decision necessary for disaster? Philosopher Leslie Howe advances a theory that may help to explain the phenomenon: it's easy to ignore warning signs if you buy your own bullshit. Links for the Curious - Bullshit as a practical strategy for self‐deceptive narrators (Howe, 2022) - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phil.12318 ‘Pizzagate' gunman says he was foolish, reckless, mistaken — and sorry - The Washington Post Lies, Bullshit and Fake News (MacKenzie & Batt, 2020) - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42438-019-00085-4 A Slice Of Pragmatism: Navigating The Pizzagate Conspiracy, Bullshit and Fake News in the Post-Truth Era (Jones, 2019) - https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1061163/Jones,%20Madeline%202019.pdf?sequence=1 Bullshit as a Problem of Social Epistemology (Wakeham, 2017) - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joshua-Wakeham/publication/315321666_Bullshit_as_a_Problem_of_Social_Epistemology/links/5a14dce7aca27273c9eb0ea0/Bullshit-as-a-Problem-of-Social-Epistemology.pdf On Bullshit (Frankfurt, 1986) - http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf Warrant and action (Gerken, 2011) - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-009-9655-0 Components of Vested Interest and Attitude-Behavior Consistency (Crano & Prislin, 1995) - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Radmila-Prislin/publication/247808633_Components_of_Vested_Interest_and_Attitude-Behavior_Consistency/links/54adca260cf2213c5fe4199c/Components-of-Vested-Interest-and-Attitude-Behavior-Consistency.pdf Self-Regulatory Aspects of Bullshitting and Bullshit Detection (Petrocelli et al, 2020) - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341055056_Self-Regulatory_Aspects_of_Bullshitting_and_Bullshit_Detection/link/5f654c24a6fdcc00862d1395/download Probably not the best idea I've ever had (Mistie Knight) - https://www.instagram.com/p/ChiYvGOJz5I/?hl=en Expensive Fails: Mo Money, Mo Fails | FailArmy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaWn4VP37SU

Epistemology is the area of philosophy that studies and evaluates how we come to form our beliefs and know things about the world. Historically, epistemology was studied as a private enterprise but today, particularly with social media, the task of gaining knowledge is a thoroughly social enterprise. In this lecture, Dr. Forrest examined four epistemic principles that correct false and destructive messages from our culture about how we gain knowledge and brainstorm ways to integrate these principles into the classroom. These principles, if grasped by middle and high schoolers, will go a long way in helping them navigate through an often confusing and hostile world, while confidently forming beliefs that align with the true, the good, and the beautiful.Peter Forrest, Ph.D., received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Oxford in 2015, after having previously received a B.Phil. in philosophy from Oxford in 2011, a M.A. in philosophical theology from Yale University Divinity School in 2009, and a B.A. in English from Yale University in 2005. Dr. Forrest's primary area of research has been in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science, and he has spent the past five years teaching undergraduates in the philosophy department at Auburn University. He is married and is father to two young children, and in his spare time he enjoys coaching his son's soccer team. He serves as the Dean of Humanities for Thales College.This lecture was delivered live at the Fall Classical Summit, a regional classical conference held at Thales Academy Apex Junior High-High School on October 7, 2022.

Ian and Dieter talk with Prof Miranda Fricker and Prof Havi Carel about epistemic injustice, harms in health contexts, and the connections that philosophical thinking has with literature and art. Miranda Fricker is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at The Graduate Center, CUNY. Her research is primarily in Ethics and Social Epistemology with a special interest in virtue and feminist perspectives. She is the author of Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (2007); co-author and editor of Reading Ethics: Selected texts with interactive commentary (2009); and co-editor of a number of collections, the most recent of which is The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology (2019). She was Director of the Mind Association from 2010-2015; Assistant Editor of the Journal of the APA from 2014-2020; and since 2015 has served as Moral Philosopher on the Spoliation Advisory Panel, a UK government-appointed body of expert advisers that considers claims concerning loss of cultural property during the Nazi era. She is an Honorary Professor in the Department of Philosophy, University of Sheffield, a Fellow of the British Academy, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. This year she was elected President of the American Philosophical Association (Eastern Division) 2022-23. Havi Carel is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Bristol, where she also teaches medical students. In 2020 she completed a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award, leading a five-year project, the Life of Breath. She was awarded the Health Humanities' Inspiration Award 2018 for her work on the project. Havi won the IJPS 2021 PERITIA Prize for her paper ‘When Institutional Opacity Meets Individual Vulnerability: Institutional Testimonial Injustice' (co-authored with Ian Kidd), published in International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Her third monograph was published by Oxford University Press in 2016, entitled Phenomenology of Illness. Havi was voted by students as a ‘Best of Bristol' lecturer in 2016. Havi is the author of Illness (2008, 2013, 2018), shortlisted for the Wellcome Trust Book Prize, and of Life and Death in Freud and Heidegger (2006). She is the co-editor of Health, Illness and Disease (2012) and of What Philosophy Is (2004). She uses film in teaching and has co-edited a volume entitled New Takes in Film-Philosophy (2010). She also co-edited a special issue of Philosophy on ‘Human Experience and Nature' (2013). She previously published on the embodied experience of illness, epistemic injustice in healthcare, vulnerability, wellbeing within illness, transformative experience, death, and on the experience of respiratory illness in the Lancet, BMJ, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Journal of Medical Ethics, Journal of Applied Philosophy, and in edited collections.

M interviews Julia Duetz, author of "Conspiracy Theories are Not Beliefs" (Erkenntnis), and the forthcoming coming paper "What does it mean for a conspiracy theory to be a 'theory?'" (Social Epistemology). — Josh is @monkeyfluids and M is @conspiracism on Twitter You can also contact us at: podcastconspiracy@gmail.com Why not support The Podcaster's Guide to the Conspiracy by donating to our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/podcastersguidetotheconspiracy or Podbean crowdfunding? http://www.podbean.com/patron/crowdfund/profile/id/muv5b-79

I ask the philosopher Liam Kofi Bright five questions about himself. Liam Kofi Bright is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is the author of “Group Lies and Reflections on the Purpose of Social Epistemology” (2020), “Why Do Scientists Lie?” (2021), and other essays in epistemology and the philosophy of science.

By Nick Bostrom.Abstract:Information hazards are risks that arise from the dissemination or the potential dissemination of true information that may cause harm or enable some agent to cause harm. Such hazards are often subtler than direct physical threats, and, as a consequence, are easily overlooked. They can, however, be important. This paper surveys the terrain and proposes a taxonomy.Read the full paper:https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdfMore episodes at:https://radiobostrom.com/

Today we're going to be joined by Mira Hannegard,a former PhD student at the University of Uppsala. We'll be talking about her experiences as a graduate student at a Swedish PhD programme, her research on social epistemology and mansplaining, as well as her decision to quit her PhD programme. If, after listening, you'd like to get in touch with Mira, you can email her at hannegardmvl@gmail.com. Find out more at http://www.philosophersnest.com

Let's talk transhumanism. Steve Fuller Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, England talks to Holly Chant of the band Xylaroo, to give her inspiration for a new song. Social Epistemology, what it is and how it is relevant to the question of Intelligent Design? Steve was originally trained in history and philosophy of science, but he is best known for the research programme of 'social epistemology', which is the title of a journal he founded in 1987 and the first of his dozen books. Links: Xylaroo - http://www.sundaybest.net/artists/xylaroo/ Prof. Steve Fuller - http://profstevefuller.net/ Podsongs - https://podsongs.com/ Recorded at @Goldmine.Records --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/podsongs/message

What can you do to stay informed about digital immortality, digital legacy, digital life curation, and all things #Deathtech?Being ahead in this changing marketplace and cultural transformation could help you spot trends and find opportunities to promote and grow your end-of-life or funeral business.Welcome to The Art of Memorialising - an audio newsletter by Peter Billingham from Death Goes Digital and Memorable Words Eulogy Writing services.The Art of Memorialising curates news on digital immortality, digital legacy, digital life curation and all things #Deathtech.Thanks for being here.Memorable Words Eulogy Writing Services is sponsoring this month's edition.Memorable Words eulogy writing services take thoughts and precious memories of your loved one, and then craft them into unique and individual eulogy story celebrating and honouring their life.What Will You Find In This Issue?Two examples of the funeral industry seeing and taking opportunities to add digital legacy planning packages to funerals as an additional up sale point. Why digital legacy planning is critical and the heartbreaking challenges families face dealing with a loved one's digital estate without it. This is why the industry is going to grow exponentially in the future?Deep questions about the ‘who' we might become online long after we have died.How Will They Remember You? A Plaque Under A Tree or As A Digital Clone?The blossom on the large cherry tree overlooking the pond in my local park is magnificent this year. An explosive mass of pink petals, bursting with a promise - Spring is finally here. The blossom display is brief, lasts a couple of weeks at most, less if the wind and the rain rip the precious blooms from the branches. At the foot of this tree, there is a simple square brass plaque. I see it every day when I walk in the park with my dog. It is always there. I don't believe it will ever it disappear. Sometimes I stand under the cherry tree and remember my friend, pausing a while when the branches are heavy with pink flowers. ‘For Shelagh - who loved this park to walk her dog remembered by her dog walking friends.' Says the words on the plaque. Shelagh had a cheeky, raucous laugh. Someone once wrote, ‘Laughter is the sound of the soul dancing.' If that's so, Shelagh's soul must have been a bit like Ginger Rogers. She was slight in stature and wise in nature. A quip here, a joke there, and a poignant reflection occasionally. I enjoyed walking with her and the regular 8:30 a.m. dog walking crew. You could have set your clocks by us. Shelagh began to limp. It didn't go away. The diagnosis was brutal. The cancer in her spine was terminal. Brave as could be, with six months' life expectancy, she had a living funeral. ‘I want to hear all the lovely things you are going to say about me!' She declared. And we did. Shelagh passed away only a couple of days after the most memorable of nights of celebrating her life. I'll never forget her dancing in a wheelchair with her husband that night.A few weeks after she had passed away, with the other dog walking friends, we all stood around a large hole, ready to plant a small cherry tree in the park. It was in a beautiful spot overlooking the pond. At the side was a large mound of earth. At the call of some unseen, unheard, but direct command, starting with Shelagh's black Labrador, the dogs ceremoniously cocked a leg or squatted on the earth, leaving the sort of tribute only a dog can leave in that moment! I said a few words to remember our friend Shelagh. Each spring, looking up in the beautiful blossom on her tree, I remember one brave woman. As part of researching a new book, I'm asking what makes a life memorable? Really, what can we do to live a memorable life? Then, how should we remember a life? Would you prefer a digital clone, a ‘avatar' of you immortal online, or how about a brass plaque in the park? I've spent probably more hours online than in the park walking my dog for sure. But I'm thinking a brass plaque would be my choice. When the day comes, and they remember your life, what's your choice?Please write and let me know what you think make a life memorable? And - how would you want your life to be remembered? You can email me at info@deathgoesdigital.com——Startup SpotlightsHeard of a startup in digital life curation or #Deathtech?Please let me know. Email info@deathgoesdigital.com——Sponsored Product Memorable WordsMemorable Words Eulogy Writing Services The heartbreaking sadness many families faced losing a loved one through COVID, in lockdown, and being unable to attend their funeral through national restrictions or the location of the funeral. It was not the way many people needed or wanted to say farewell to a loved one. As a eulogy writer, I'm finding several families now are asking me to write eulogies for memorial services. The funeral may have taken place in 2020 or 2021. But now, by the side of a lake, in a favourite wood, even in a back garden, families are gathering to remember loved ones. Having a bespoke eulogy written to celebrate that life helps to read out on that day.Can I help someone you know plan a eulogy for a memorial service? I offer three eulogy writing packages, starting at £147. Full Disclosure - Memorable Words is my business. Apart from editing this newsletter and website, I write and deliver eulogies for families across the world. Interested in sharing your new product or service with readers of The Art of Memorialising? We highlight your product, service, or idea sponsoring an edition. We give you the space; you get to tell the world about what you are doing or have created.You and your business can become part of the adventure now. Secure your month in 2022/23 now. Memorialisation Morsels5 meaty bites of news for YOU to stay ahead of the conversation on Digital Legacy, Digital Life Curation & all things #Deathtech.1 - Will Funeral Directors and Funeral Businesses Make Extra Income From Selling Digital Legacy Packages Now? EverArk believes they can. Launched at the recent The International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association (ICCFA) Convention & Expo, EverArk is a supplier of cemetery management software. Reading the press release (via PR Newswire), the software has many distinct features, but it was the addition of Digital Legacy Packages (via an app) to promote sales, which was interesting. EverArk has a single and family package that cemeteries can upsell to customers and earn money on each sale. The minimum price is $299 and $499, respectively. “No other cemetery management software offers a digital product that allows a cemetery to sell and earn money,” EverArk CEO Greg Marmulak said in the press release. Could this be a trend and business opportunity for other aspects of the funeral industry in the future? It appears so - read on!2 - How Does Partnering With A Digital Legacy Provider Offer Practical Help For Families and Profits For Funeral Businesses?Taking the step to partner with GoodTrust, Darling and Fischer, a funeral home in California is now offering the services of a Digital Executor via GoodTrust. (via Yahoo Finance) “We are excited to be partnering with GoodTrust and offer all of our at-need families the opportunity to secure their loved one's digital legacy forever and give them peace of mind,” said Nicholas J. Welzenbach, Managing Partner at Darling & Fischer. It seems as if GoodTrust is leading the way in these partnering relationships. Another funeral technology software company, eFuneral, announced a similar launch and partnership. (via PR Newswire) I wonder who might take a similar lead in the UK?3 - So, Just How Complex Is The Reality of Dealing With A Digital Estate?Catherine Mayer understands how hard it can be to deal with a loved one's digital assets. When her husband, Andy Gill, guitarist from the band Gang Of Four, died in 2020, his death trended on Twitter. Getting hold of his digital assets and accounts has been an uphill battle. She speaks about her experiences and what she's learned from them on a fascinating panel discussion podcast. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales - (ICAEW) - podcast discussed ‘Death and digital assets.' Truly insightful panel discussion highlighting the genuine issues families face dealing with the online accounts of a deceased relative or loved one. You can read the transcript here.4 - Will Digital Clones Become The Epitome of Our Life as a Work of Art? From an academic viewpoint, Professor of Social Epistemology, Steve Fuller from Warwick University, asks if the self-archiving of our lives online is driven by some desire to leave a legacy of followers while alive and possibly dead? Will we design and create a masterpiece of our digital self online, different from the reality of who we are? That happens now. How much of the filtered, touched up images online are the truth self? The growth of AI powered software to create a digital twin or digital avatar brings opportunities and moral questions we have not had to ask before. Fuller suggests it is useful to think of the digital avatar as a being who starts as a clone of the biological human, but then over time develops its own digitally based experiences so that it effectively becomes a different being. Really? Now that presents all kinds of deep questions about ‘who really is the digital avatar?' Will the real digital clone online stand up? Fuller, Steve. 2022. “Digital Clones as the Epitome of Life as a Work of Art.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective5 - Would You Like To Contribute Your Input Into The Digital Death Survey 2022?The purpose of the Digital Death Survey is to better understand how the internet and technology are changing societies' attitudes and needs around death, care planning and bereavement. This leading survey was started in 2014 by the Digital Legacy Association (UK). In recent years, the research has received further support from Dr. Carla Sofka of Siena College (USA). A secondary purpose of the digital death survey is to educate participants about this emerging area. Data will be aggregated and made available for free on the Digital Legacy Association's website, explained at professional conferences and/or workshops, and potentially published in journal articles or books. (Link open until May 1st)SnippetsAfter watching Jensen Haung, the CEO of NVIDIA, keynote address, Rob Enderle poses some interesting questions about the development of digital immortality with AI avatars. It's not that far off our digital avatar could still keep working long after we have died! Who gets the salary then? Digital Devices (Access for Next of Kin) Bill - UK - 2nd Reading Took Place - A second reading will happen 6th May 2022.——Who do you know who would find this information interesting?Please, can you forward the email to them? I'd be very grateful. Let's start a conversation - info@deathgoesdigital.comUntil next month, keep safe, and keep going. PetePhoto by AJ on Unsplash This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theartofmemorialising.substack.com

Igor Douven on evolutionary modelling and trust in science. Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1No

Welcome to another episode of The Words Matter Podcast.As usual, I want to start by thanking everyone that supports the show via Patreon and for those of you that share the podcast. The growth of the podcast over the past 6 months has been incredible, and I'm frequently getting messages from people across the globe and professional and academic landscape saying how much they've enjoyed the conversations – so a sincere thank you.Like many of you, I've had a bit of a break over the summer and hopefully you have caught up on the incredible qualitative research series, so perfectly finished off by my chat with Prof. Dave Nichiolls.And on this episode I'm continuing to explore the philosophical and conceptual side of the social world by speaking about relativism with Prof. Martin Kusch.Martin is professor for applied philosophy of science and epistemology at the University of Vienna, and previously he was Professor of Philosophy and Sociology of science at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University.Martin has published widely on the philosophy of social science, social epistemology, the sociology of knowledge and the history of psychology. He also has a long-standing interest in everything to do with relativism and has published extensively in the area, including the books The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Relativism, Social Epistemology and Relativism, The Emergence of Relativism and Relativism in the philosophy of science. So on this episode we talk about: Relativism as a spectrum concept, with many different views of the doctrine ranging from radical to the more subtle. The many different domains of relativism, such as aesthetic value, taste, morality or epistemic justification. Martin sets out his five key ingredients of relativism, regardless of view or form of relativism. These principles are: Standards dependence, plurality, conflict, convergence and symmetry. How the commitment to equal validity, aka the ‘anything goes' form of relativism is often by critics to define relativism in the most implausible way in order to attack it, and therefore can avoid engaging in the more nuanced, sensible and interesting versions of relativism. Why our sense taste is often used as a ‘test case' for the plausibility or implausibility of relativism. We talk about the main opponent of relativism, namely absolutism. How relativism provides us with a sense of epistemic humility, but importantly this does automatically assume a position of epistemic tolerance. How methodological relativism has been used to good effect in the social sciences such as anthropology, ethnography and many of the qualitative research approaches which I've discussed on this podcast before. Finally, Martin offers his views about the different ways that we might access a reality, and what relativism has to say about notions of a single objective reality. So it was a complete privilege speaking with Martin – I'd been dreaming of wanting to explore relativism on the podcast for a long time and had been hovering over the direct message button on Martin's Twitter profile for many months – his friendliness and enthusiasm to share his knowledge and expertise podcast was just brilliant.He really is one of the foremost thinkers and writers of relativism, and here are some of his excellent talks and videos, including an excellent TedX talk he gave in 2019 titled Scientific expertise in the age of post-truth.Find Martin on Twitter @MartinKuschSupport the show and contribute via Patreon hereIf you liked the podcast, you'll love The Words Matter online course and mentoring to develop your clinical expertise  - ideal for all MSK therapists.Follow Words Matter on:Instagram @Wordsmatter_education @TheWordsMatterPodcastTwitter @WordsClinicalFacebook Words Matter - Improving Clinical Communication★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Gwendolyn Dolske and Rudy Salo talk with Oliver Traldi (University of Notre Dame) about social epistemology, expertise, and how the internet has altered/shaped arguments. Oliver Traldi Support the pod on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GoodIsInTheDetails Rudy's recommendation: "The New Puritans"

I am very excited to introduce you to the fascinating philosopher that is Charlotte Zemmel. Charlotte works in the field of epistemology. She has an undergrad in Natural Sciences and she is currently at Cambridge University studying for her masters in History and Philosophy of Science. In this episode we discuss Charlotte's work on Social Epistemology and Cognitive Diversity: what they are and why they are important. Enjoy!Thrive by MusicbyAden | https://soundcloud.com/musicbyadenMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comAttribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

Professor Soraj Hongladarom is professor of philosophy and Director of the Center for Ethics of Science and Technology at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand. He has published books and articles on diverse issues as bioethics, computer ethics, and the roles that science and technology play in the culture of Eastern countries. His concern is mainly on how science and technology can be integrated into the life-world of people in the so-called ‘Third World' countries, and what kind of ethical considerations can be obtained from such relations. A large part of this question concerns how information technology is integrated in the lifeworld of the Thai people, and especially how such integration is expressed in the use of information technology in education. He is the editor, together with Charles Ess, of Information Technology Ethics: Cultural Perspectives, published by IGI Global. His works have also appeared in Bioethics, The Information Society, AI & Society, Philosophy in the Contemporary World, and Social Epistemology, among others. Subscribe to our newsletter today A Correction Podcast Episodes RSS

This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Steve Fuller. They speak about Steve's book Kuhn Vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science, how Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn each regarded the scientific method, the differences between these two conceptions, the significance of the arguments involved and how they defined both science and public opinion (and continue to do so), the history of science and how it should be understood, the moral implications and responsibilities associated with each man's theory, how the disagreement played out over time, and what happened at the infamous 1965 Popper-Kuhn debate at Bedford College, University of London.   Steve Fuller holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick. He is the founder of the research program of social epistemology, is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, the UK Academy of Social Sciences, and the European Academy of Sciences and Arts. He is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, the leading ‘ecomodernist' think-tank, and an Affiliate Scholar at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, the leading ‘transhumanist' think-tank. Steve is the author of twenty-five books, which have been translated into more than twenty languages. *** Kuhn Vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science (Results for Kuhn Vs.Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science | Book Depository). *** You can follow Steve Fuller's ongoing work at: Steve Fuller (warwick.ac.uk) and Steve Fuller | University of Warwick - Academia.edu. Support via Patreon – https://www.patreon.com/jedleahenry Support via PayPal – https://www.paypal.me/jrleahenry Shop – https://shop.spreadshirt.com.au/JLH-shop/ Support via Bitcoin - 31wQMYixAJ7Tisp773cSvpUuzr2rmRhjaW Website – The Popperian Podcast — Jed Lea-Henry Libsyn – The Popperian Podcast (libsyn.com) Youtube – The Popperian Podcast - YouTube Twitter – https://twitter.com/jedleahenry RSS - https://popperian-podcast.libsyn.com/rss *** Underlying artwork by Arturo Espinosa

Dr. Casey Johnson is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Idaho. We discussed MANSPLAINING, the illocutionary force, and a few other brain busters. Enjoy! Intro and outro was provided by Brock Tanya and Terron Tvrdy, respectively.

Dr. Bert Baumgaertner is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Idaho. We discussed the importance of symbolic philosophy in law, mathematics, and computer science, as well as some social epistemological questions such as vaccine hesitancy, political polarization, and echo chambers. Enjoy! The intro and outro were both generously provided by Terron Tvrdy; he is the sole owner and distributor of this music. For any questions, comments, or suggestions, email us at into.the.absurd.podcast@gmail.com or follow us on Facebook (@podcast.into.the.absurd), Instagram (@into.the.absurd), Twitter (@AbsurdInto), or Reddit (r/Into_the_Absurd). Thank you for listening!

Professor Frank Pasquale (Brooklyn School of Law) and Professor Steve Fuller (University of Warwick) debate whether humans should regulate artificial intelligence, and discuss the appropriate ways to safeguard the development of automation technologies. Pasquale argued for a precautionary approach to the development of AI - one that favours a careful deployment of new laws for their usage. Whereas Fuller argued for a more proactionary approach to technological innovation - one that allows AI to developed unencumbered by the sorts of governance that might limit its scope. This debate was recorded for SingularityNET as part of their Decentralised OS Web Series. This Bonus Episode is not sponsored content. Frank Pasquale is Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School and author of The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. His work has appeared in the Atlantic, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Guardian, and other outlets. Prof. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is the author of more than twenty books. From 2011 to 2014 he published three books with Palgrave on 'Humanity 2.0'. His most recent book is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of Transhuman Era (Schwabe Verlag, 2020). Find out more: futurespodcast.net CREDITS Produced by FUTURES Podcast Recorded, Mixed & Edited by Luke Robert Mason FOLLOW FUTURES PODCAST Twitter: @FUTURESPodcast Instagram: @futurespodcast Facebook: @FUTURESPodcast

The Humanity 2.0 Maximizing Human Flourishing Panel was delivered by:-Matthew Sanders, CEO/Co-Founder of Humanity 2.0-Rev. Ezra Sullivan, O.P, Director of Project Vision for Humanity 2.0-Professor Tyler Vanderweele, Director of Human Flourishing Program for Harvard's Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences-Professor Steve Fuller, Chairman of Social Epistemology at University of Warwick-John Havens, Executive Director of IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous & Intelligent Systems at IEEE-Professor Sarah Spiekermann-Hoff, Head of Institute for Management Information Systems at Vienna University of Economics & Business -John Murdock, President of Bandwidth Inc.The Humanity 2.0 forum held at the Vatican was filmed LIVE on the Traders Network Show, hosted by Matt Bird. To inquire about being a guest on this show or others: Matthew Bird CommPro Worldwide C: +1 (646) 401-4499 E: matt@commpro.com W: www.commpro.com Visit: http://tradersnetworkshow.com for more details about the show.

In this episode, Brian Beckcom speaks with Professor Robin Hanson about the unconscious motives that drive human behavior and their impact on our everyday lives. Brian and Professor Hanson talk about how to confront our hidden motives, examine them, and see clearly so that we can better understand ourselves and our fellow human beings.  Robin Hanson is the co-author of The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life.” In his book, Robin explains how our minds actually work. He explains how and why we deceive ourselves and others. And he describes how our unconscious motives impact more than just our private behavior; they influence our institutions, art, medicine, schools, and politics.   Robin Hanson’s work is relevant today considering the bizarre place we find ourselves in history.  Brian and Professor Robin Hanson discuss: How he transitioned from STEM fields into social science  Predetermined human behavior and the duplicity of free will Why humans act based on hidden motives and why we fail to detect them  How our unconscious motives have shaped the political landscape we see today The essence of science and the differences between “experts” and “elites” How to effectively deal with disagreements on difficult topics Why so many spouses hate cryonics (the low-temperature freezing and storage of a human corpse or severed head) Why we haven’t seen aliens and when to expect them! And other things Robin D. Hanson is an economics professor at George Mason University and a research associate at the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University. He has a doctorate in social science from the California Institute of Technology, a master’s degree in physics and philosophy from the University of Chicago, and nine years of experience as a research programmer, at Lockheed Martin and NASA. Professor Hanson has 4510 citations, a citation h-index of 33, and over ninety academic publications ranging from Algorithmica and Information Systems Frontiers to Social Philosophy and Social Epistemology. Robin has diverse research interests, with papers on spatial product competition, product bans, evolutionary psychology, voter information incentives, incentives to fake expertise, self-deception in disagreement, wiretaps, image reconstruction, the origin of life, the survival of humanity, and interstellar colonization. To learn more about Professor Robin Hanson, please visit his bio at https://www.overcomingbias.com/bio.

In this episode we will look at the question of whether math and science are socially constructed, and what that does or doesn't indicate for the validity of these disciplines. We will also talk about how the idea of social construction is often used to undermine knowledge.

Sociologist Prof. Steve Fuller shares his thoughts on transhumanism as a science-based religion, the value of taking a death-based approach to life, and why Friedrich Nietzsche is the futurist we need today. Prof. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is the author of more than twenty books. From 2011 to 2014 he published three books with Palgrave on 'Humanity 2.0'. His most recent book is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of Transhuman Era (Schwabe Verlag, 2020). Find out more: futurespodcast.net CREDITS Produced by FUTURES Podcast Recorded, Mixed & Edited by Luke Robert Mason FOLLOW FUTURES PODCAST Twitter: @FUTURESPodcast Instagram: @futurespodcast Facebook: @FUTURESPodcast

In this episode we got to sit down with Ean Henninger and Ted Lee to talk about precarity in the library, archival, and information field. It’s a fascinating conversation, ranging from the challenges of addressing the lack of diversity in LIS to the mental and physical toll of precarious work, to the inevitable question: how do we dismantle capitalism!? Read along with the transcript. Resources > Follow Ean on Twitter: @rhymewithzinger; @LISprecarity > Follow Ted on Twitter: @teioh > Isabell Lorey’s book “The State of Insecurity” > SAA19 Archivist Salary Transparency Open Spreadsheet (updated October 2019) > Ted’s tweet about the postmodern condition and his thread about precarity and capitalism > April Hathcock’s twitter and her article “White Librarianship in Blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS" > LIS Precarity’s research page  > Alaniz, D. (2019). Reflections on temporary appointments and innovation/diversity culture in libraries and archives.  > Bacevic, J. (2019). Knowing Neoliberalism. Social Epistemology 33(4), 380-392. > Henninger, E., Brons, A., Riley, C., & Yin, C. (2019). Perceptions and experiences of precarious employment in Canadian libraries: An exploratory study. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 14(2). Fact checking! > The City of Burnaby’s $1 billion surplus that Allison mentions isn’t a surplus, it’s a reserve fund.  > From Matthew Battles’ Library: An Unquiet History: Dewey developed a serious cough after being caught in a fire and doctors thought he wouldn’t live long, so he became obsessed with efficiency. “In superficial retrospect, the decision [to admit women to the School of Library Economy at Columbia] looks like a pioneer move in women’s rights. But as his biographer Wiegand points out, Dewey actually used the admittance of women to the college to the same end he used their hiring in the library: to define the profession down. Women were already socially subordinate to the men who filled faculty roles; for Dewey, this subordination nicely mirrored the professional subordination of librarians to professors and other experts—a subordination he deemed necessary to the efficient workings of the library.” (144) The cover art is done by our friend Andrea Lukic. You can reach us at: > Email: organizingideaspod [at] gmail [dot] com > Twitter: @OrganizingPod > Website: https://organizingideaspod.wordpress.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/organizing-ideas/message

Hélène Landemore is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Yale University. Her research and teaching interests include democratic theory, political epistemology, theories of justice, the philosophy of social sciences (particularly economics), constitutional processes and theories, and workplace democracy. Her first book (in French) Hume. Probabilité et Choix Raisonnable (PUF: 2004) was a philosophical investigation of David Hume’s theory of decision-making. Her second book (in English) Democratic Reason won the Montreal Manuscript Workshop Award in 2011; the Elaine and David Spitz Prize in 2015; and the 2018 APSA “Ideas, Knowledge, and Politics” section book award. Hélène’s third book–Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the 21st Century (under contract with Princeton University Press)–develops a new paradigm of democracy in which the exercise of power is as little gated as possible, even as it depends on representative structures to make it possible. In this version of popular rule, power is equally open to all, as opposed to just those who happen to stand out in the eyes of others (as in electoral democracies). The book centrally defends the use of non-electoral yet democratic forms of representation, including “lottocratic,” “self-selected,” and “liquid” representation. Hélène is also co-editor with Jon Elster of Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms (Cambridge University Press 2012), and is currently working on a new edited volume project on Digital Technology and Democratic Theory, together with Rob Reich and Lucy Bernholz at Stanford. Her articles have been published in, among others, Journal of Political Philosophy; Political Theory; Politics, Philosophy, and Economics; Political Psychology; Social Epistemology; Synthese; the Swiss Review of Political Science: and the Journal of Politics. Her research has been featured in the New York Times, the Boston Review, Slate, and L’Humanité. Before joining Yale, Hélène lectured at Brown University and MIT. She is also an alumna from the Sorbonne, the Ecole Normale Supérieure (Ulm), and Sciences-Po in Paris. In the past Hélène has taught various courses, including “Introduction to Political Philosophy,” “Justice in Western Thought,” “Directed Studies,” “Beyond Representative Government,” “Deliberative Democracy and Beyond,” “Political Epistemology,” and “Political Authority.” In 2014 she won a National Endowment for the Humanities grant for her interdisciplinary lecture course “How Do We Choose, and Choose Well.” To learn more about liquid democracy visit http://liquid.us

Welcome to Homo Sapien 2.0, a podcast series about transcending our biological limitations and interviewing the visionaries helping make it happen. In this podcast, we talk to Professor Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of […] Author information Kenneth Damien Vice-Chair at LSEAAL Ken graduated with a law degree (LLB 2010) from the LSE and is presently the Vice-Chair of the LSE Alumni Association London (LSEAAL). Ken is a practising solicitor with a core focus on the technology sector currently working with Axiom, a global leading alternative legal services provider. He previously worked as In-House Counsel at Aveva, a world-leading industrial software provider. Ken has a particular interest in issues of data protection, anti-piracy and cybersecurity as well as policy discussions surrounding the regulation of emerging technologies including AI and blockchain. | The post The Role of the State in Funding Innovation [PODCAST]- Professor Steve Fuller appeared first on LSE London Alumni & Friends.

Steve Fuller, August Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, brings us right up to date with an original take on the meaning of 'post-truth'.

Ok, explainer challenge: how do you explain social epistemology to a bunch of real estate agents at your neighbourhood barbecue? You know who knows how? Professor Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, that's who! We talk with Steve about advice for Zuckerberg, the crucial role of the 'we' and when is the best time to throw down the Popper! The Wholesome Show is @rodl and @willozap, proudly supported by @ANU_CPAS!

Alvin I. Goldman (Rutgers) meets Stephan Hartmann (MCMP/LMU) in a joint session on "Bridging the Gap between Informal and Formal Social Epistemology" at the MCMP workshop "Bridges 2014" (2 and 3 Sept, 2014, German House, New York City). The 2-day trans-continental meeting in mathematical philosophy focused on inter-theoretical relations thereby connecting form and content of this philosophical exchange. Idea and motivation: We use theories to explain, to predict and to instruct, to talk about our world and order the objects therein. Different theories deliberately emphasize different aspects of an object, purposefully utilize different formal methods, and necessarily confine their attention to a distinct field of interest. The desire to enlarge knowledge by combining two theories presents a research community with the task of building bridges between the structures and theoretical entities on both sides. Especially if no background theory is available as yet, this becomes a question of principle and of philosophical groundwork: If there are any – what are the inter-theoretical relations to look like? Will a unified theory possibly adjudicate between monist and dualist positions? Under what circumstances will partial translations suffice? Can the ontological status of inter-theoretical relations inform us about inter-object relations in the world? Find more about the meeting at www.lmu.de/bridges2014.

Special guest Walter Sinnott-Armstrong joins the podcast to explain how his theory which desperately needs a new name ("contrastivism") can dissolve most of the fundamental problems and paradoxes in philosophy.  We also talk about psychopaths--what they are and what we can do about them.  But first we read and respond to an angry piece of fan mail (ok, maybe 'fan' is not the right word) from Sam Harris, trashing us--mostly Tamler--for our comments on VBW 45 about the new atheists. LinksSam Harris debates Andrew Sullivan [samharris.org]Richard Dawkins on the harm of fairy tales (read until the end) [telegraph.co.uk]Walter Sinnott-Armtrong's Home Page [duke.edu]Sinnott‐Armstrong, W. (2008). A contrastivist manifesto. Social Epistemology, 22(3), 257-270. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. (2006) It's not my fault: Global warming and individual moral obligations. Advances in the Economics of Environmental Resources 5, 285-307.The Memory of Jurors: Enhancing Trial Performance by Anders Sandberg, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Julian Savulescu. Special Guest: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

In this chapter of Darwin or Design, I talk with Dr Steve Fuller. We discuss the idea of Social Epistemology, what it is and how it is relevant to the question of Intelligent Design. Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, England. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is best known for the research programme of 'social epistemology', which is the title of a journal he founded in 1987 and the first of his dozen books. His most recent books relevant to the interview are Science vs. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution (Polity, 2007) and The Knowledge Book: Key Concepts in Philosophy, Science and Culture (Acumen and McGill-Queens University Press, 2007).