ToKCast

Ep 172: Talents and Testing

A personal recollection about how even the better schools can, with all the best intentions, undo some of the value they do provide in spite of themselves, over the course of years...in less than a day.

Ep 171: Knowledge and Ignorance 6

This is the conclusion of Popper's grand lecture "On the sources of knowledge and of ignorance". We reach part 13 and move all the way through to part 17 - the conclusion. This is a celebration of Popper's epistemology. He summarises his outlook on how other views are mistaken and what it really takes to generate knowledge. He speaks of his vision as a critical rationalism and a critical empiricism - a form of knowledge creation that corrects the errors in advances made nearer to the beginning of the Enlightenment but also in the mould of some of the ancients like Xenophanes. Popper explains how truth is real and objective and why the idea that anyone can possess the truth causes knowledge to become subjective, rather than objective (in short because anyone claiming to possess the truth is themselves a subject claiming authority over truth). Popper explains in this part of the lecture how we are all equal in our infinite ignorance - and so his philosophy reaches into humanism - a celebration of fallibility and of our capacity to come to understand reality.

Ep 170: Are creativity and consciousness the same thing?

I refer to three other articles I have written related to this piece:
1. "Free Will, Consciousness, Creativity, Explanations, Knowledge and Choice" - https://www.bretthall.org/free-will-consciousness-creativity-explanations-knowledge-and-choice.html
2. Humans and Other Animals: https://www.bretthall.org/humans-and-other-animals.html
3. The idea we have thoughts but are not identical to any particular thought or even set of thoughts: https://www.bretthall.org/critically-creative-3.html
 
The article/script related to this piece can be found here: https://www.bretthall.org/creativity-and-consciousness.html
 

Ep 169: Livestream & Happy New Year

This is a podcast in 2 parts. I begin with a 10 minute introduction with some very broad remarks on the year and response to a question from a Patreon. Then the audio from my most recent livestream which went for around 2 hours and covered a wide variety of topics. Enjoy!

Ep 168: David Deutsch’s ”The Fabric of Reality” Chapter 9 ”Quantum Computers” Part 1

Here we set the scene for an explanation of the functioning of quantum computers and their significance. What are the problems that quantum computation might solve? What is the fundamental advantage of computation and hence quantum computation for humanity and for an understanding of "the fabric of reality". We connect quantum computation to the technologies that preceded it - indeed back to the use of hammer, chisel and water wheels. Understanding reality and the laws that govern it enable technology which enables automation and increased time to work on the next problems allowing solutions that continue this ratcheting up of objective progress in the world. This chapter could very well be a book on its own as we mount the argument that not only is computation, life and thought significant in this world but that the laws of physics mandate the existence of all three in a deep way. How can we explain this apparent providence? Answers in this episode :)

Ep 167: ”Degrowth” - the plan for civilisational decline and disaster.

In this episode I respond to an article in the Science Journal “Nature”. Here is the link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x 
Nature is among the highest tier of journals in the world - highly respected and the place every scientist would love to have their work published at some point in their career. Nature has editorials as well as journal articles and they have effectively a letters to the editor section and commentary. Nonetheless, although this article is labelled as “comment” it has 8 authors all claiming expertise in disciplines from environmental science through to ecological economics and sociology. I refute the article paragraph by paragraph and point by point providing analysis, opinion and reflections. This is a clash of worldviews: that of decline and degrowth and pro-environment and that of progress, growth and pro-people. This was something of a “straw that breaks the camel’s back” moment. Just as around the world many people are struggling to pay energy bills and governments persist in implementing policies that will only see the cost of living due to energy policy increase further while the overall wealth of households decreases, Nature sees fit to publish a defence of strong-socialism. This piece refers to “science” and yet it is not science. It is not even economics. It is an ideology screed. And a screed of this kind needs to be answered because, as I conclude - this is dangerous. This is literally life, livelihood and liberty threatening. The brakes are presently on the economies of the world because of the misconception that rapid progress and growth are a bad thing. That population increase is a bad thing. That cheap reliable energy is a bad thing and the prescription for this is to coerce people into using forms of energy that are not yet shown to have worked reliably anywhere (in other words entirely untested in even one place before being mandated on all places) and in many places simply not available yet, while coal and fossil fuel supplies are decommissioned too early. This is a threat to nation states and to the globe. This is my defence of humanity against anti-rational memes, prosaic “bad ideas” and stasis.
 
Enjoy! :)

Ep 166: Newsletter 18: A weekend of Twitter

This is an out-of-the-box episode. 2 hours and 20 minutes of me discussing some Tweets. It was an experiment of sorts: with Elon Musk taking over ownership of the platform people have been complaining (among other things) that Twitter is worse than usual. Granted some are saying it's better. But some have quit or are threatening to quit. But why? I tried to find out by Tweeting more than normal and to see what came back. Could I find the trolls? Did I become addicted? Was the experience terrible? These are my reflections. Followers of mine from Twitter may hear themselves mentioned. I still discuss many of the usual issues about knowledge and science as I often do - but this is a fun approach to it. I might try to add timestamps to this at some point.

Ep 165: Knowledge and Ignorance Part 5

Here we delve more deeply into the ways our senses and our reason might go wrong in the creation of knowledge. There are no authoritative inerrant sources of knowledge and yet we can nonetheless come to knowledge...by creating it. Unusually for ToKCast we take a left turn into visual arts as Popper refers to some art history and remarks by the British landscape artist John Constable. Constable makes the claim his paintings are like scientific experiments. How? We get through parts 11 and 12 of Popper's lecture and provide further critique of the linguistic approach to philosophy and why this cannot help with the solving of problems either in philosophy or science. 

Ep 164: Knowledge and Ignorance Part4

John Locke, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell are herein credited with advancing the cause of tolerance. Popper makes the case for tolerance following Voltaire who argued from fallibility that we should stand ready to forgive others around us - and therefore be tolerant for humans make errors. We discuss what "interpretation" meant to Bacon (it is quite the opposite to what it means today to most people most of the time) as he speaks of interpreting nature. So does this make him an early Popperian?
Socrates "maieutic" (the "Socratic method" - his means of elucidating knowledge by the asking of careful questions) seems to come in two versions: that designed to uncover absolute truth and that with more of an emphasis on correcting errors. In this fourth part we are really getting a deep lesson in philosophy from Karl Popper himself through his summaries and analysis of the greats in the Greek and British/European philosophical traditions. 

Ep 163: David Deutsch’s ”The Fabric of Reality” Chapter 8 ”The Significance of Life” Part 2

Here we cover the cosmic significance of life and thought. I begin with some discussion of Stephen Jay Gould's view of aspects of evolution by natural selection - specifically with some analysis of his paper "The Spandrel's of San Marco" which is available here: https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/GouldLewontin.pdf

Ep 162: Steven Pinker’s ”Rationality” Chapter 7 ”Hits and False Alarms” Part 1

Here we consider whether when collecting data we are able to distinguish between the signal (hits) and noise (false alarms). I make the case the author early on is doing a good job of explaining "random error" when conducting experiments. However, broadly speaking this is an issue of increasing precision in our measurements. No mention seems to be made, crucially, in understanding the possibility of systematic error (a problem for accuracy). How do precision and accuracy differ? Why won't repeating our experiments and collecting more data help guard against certain kinds of errors? All this and more discussed in this episode.

Ep 161: David Deutsch’s ”The Fabric of Reality” Chapter 8 ”The Significance of Life”.

This chapter is about just what you get in the title: the significance of life. Is it true we are just a chemical scum? Much of "The Beginning of Infinity" worldview is contained here, in an earlier form, in this chapter. In this, the first part, we primarily consider the question of what life itself is. We conclude that it is best thought of as a kind of resilient information. And that is knowledge.

Ep 160: Knowledge and Ignorance Part 3

How can we perceive the truth? Was it naive for the ancients to think it was "the Muses" or some such who guaranteed the truth was the truth? Was Descartes way off base to think the Christian God guaranteed what we thought of as certain as indeed...certainly true? Today people still endorse ideas about "not possibly being mistaken" - but what is their basis for thinking this if not "the divine guarantor"? Here Popper continues his masterclass in the history of epistemology explaining how we have arrived at the place we are at today. He explains how knowledge creation is a process of sifting the true from the false - but how does that work? In a wonderful example Popper does this before our eyes with epistemology itself - sifting the true and false, better and worse, good and bad ideas from the ancients and classics into his own epistemology: a refined optimism of how knowledge is possible and we can all learn whatever it is anyone else can learn. It's a matter of conjecturing and correcting errors. There is no room left for someone feeling pessimistic that they cannot possibly learn a thing. 

Ep 159: Knowledge and Ignorance Part 2

In this I take things a little slower - but it's well worth the journey through Plato - even Plato's uncle "Critias" makes an appearance - and the great defender of liberalism John Milton who was one of the first to argue against censorship. Milton was one of the first to argue "truth will out" in a battle against falsehood. Popper disagreed - but agreed with Milton that censorship was never good. So what was the disagreement and how was it resolved? We learn Plato endorsed a "blood and soil" fallacy that tyrants (and not so tyrants) have used to exploit racial divisions for political reasons through to today. Popper criticises not merely the low-hanging fruit of racism but also of the origins of liberal ideas and how they can also lead to tyranny if not looked at under the brighter light of fallibilism - which as I have argued before is like an acid that is able to dissolve through dogmatism and relativism alike. Popper uses the idea that truth is NOT manifest to explain how we can better build a tolerant society by just appreciating that we can all be in error.

Ep 158: Knowledge and Ignorance Part 1

Part 1 of a new short series where I am commenting on Karl Popper's lecture "On the sources of knowledge and of ignorance". This paper sets the scene for the link between objective knowledge and fallibilism - refuting, as it does so, the empiricism of the classic British tradition and the rationalism of the Continental Tradition. I make the case at one point that most modern intellectuals (I mention the Americans in particular - perhaps unfairly) blend both classic philosophies into an epistemology of "certainly true knowledge" which is evidence based ("empirical") and inerrant (because it is "rational"). In all cases these are "the truth is manifest" crowd and that can lead to authoritarianism. The Popperian tradition is to take both the virtues of empiricism and rationalism - and thus by the light of both evidence and reason come to objective knowledge: knowledge that solves a problem but could possibly be wrong.

Ep 157: (Preview) Popper vs Other Philosophers

This is a preview of a series where I will be commenting on Popper's "On the sources of knowledge and of ignorance". In this part I remark on my own experience encountering Popper as a university student who took some philosophy subjects - how Popper was presented. How he compares to his contemporaries - like Wittgenstein. Popper's style of writing and as I keep emphasising on ToKCast - Popper's tendency to go to science - to ideas there in science and how it works set him apart. He does not invent "examples in the abstract" - thought experiments are barely a thing for Popper (while they are almost everything for Wittgenstein). Popper speaks about concretes - what was actually done, why and how. So I do this because I need a break from critiquing all those other philosophers and philosophies I have been - the contrast is stark between Popper and almost all others. Wittgenstein may be "the philosopher's philosopher". He can keep the title. Popper is "the anti-philosopher philosopher" - and a hero for being so.

Ep 156: Induction under Objectivist Epistemology - Part 2

This is part 2 of a deep dive into the role of induction in objectivist epistemology as interpreted by an objectivist scholar of Ayn Rand. Thomas Miovas Jr operates a website about Objectivism here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com. The relevant paper can be found here:
https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/induction-in-philosophy-and-the-special-sciences.html?fbclid=IwAR2cNLVGxyguM5R2TXaYe3OVclhw34lAdIKN0Mp13zTLK-J8dPMmnfNVlOs
It is the above paper I am analysing.
In this episode I discuss more about induction as it is used by Thomas and his invocation of some science - physics in particular and the broader objectivist usage of the term "induction" and Thomas Miovas attempts to salvage the word despite noticing issues with it as it is typically formulated. This leads to a comparison between Rand's style of philosophy - especially epistemology and it's tendency towards abstractions and Karl Popper's far more practical and concrete problem centred approach. Herein I look at how theory-laden any observation is - like simply observing how the sky can be blue. What does "The sky is blue" mean? Is there a sky? Is the air blue? What is scattering? Popper's vision of how knowledge is constructed accounts for this complex notion of our minds coming to solve such problems: Rand's on the other hand is left grappling with why we do not "observe the facts of reality" as she, and other objectivists such as Thomas Miovas, claim we can.

Ep 155: The Logical Leap - ”Induction in Physics”

This is an excerpt from a longer episode yet to come. After my analysis of Objectivist Epistemology (so far) I was implored to read a book by objectivist "David Harriman" titled "The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics" (2010). It is available here: https://www.amazon.com/Logical-Leap-Induction-Physics/dp/0451230051/ref=sr_1_1?crid=B5MBF53NNWR0&keywords=The+Logical+Leap&qid=1664073086&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjU0IiwicXNhIjoiMS41NCIsInFzcCI6IjEuNDYifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=the+logical+leap%2Caps%2C334&sr=8-1 
This is my analysis of a couple of important sections of the book.

Ep 154: Breakthrough (in Quantum Computation) Prize!

Stop Presses.
We interrupt regular programming to discuss the announcement of David Deutsch's share in the award of a Breakthrough Prize - one of the highest honours in science. ToKCast does not, as a rule, cover "news" - but this one exception allows me to turn something "timely" into something "timeless". There is a webpage for this episode here: https://www.bretthall.org/breakthrough.html

Ep 153: ”Induction” under Objectivist Epistemology - Part 1

This is in response to a paper by Objectivist scholar Thomas Miovas Jr who operates a website about Objectivism here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com. The relevant paper can be found here:
https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/induction-in-philosophy-and-the-special-sciences.html?fbclid=IwAR2cNLVGxyguM5R2TXaYe3OVclhw34lAdIKN0Mp13zTLK-J8dPMmnfNVlOs
In this episode I discuss induction broadly speaking, the objectivist usage of the term and Thomas Miovas attempts to salvage the word despite noticing issues with it as it is typically formulated. This leads to a comparison between Rand's style of philosophy - especially epistemology and it's tendency towards abstractions and Karl Popper's far more practical and concrete problem centred approach. Herein I look at how theory-laden any observation is - like simply observing how the sky can be blue. What does "The sky is blue" mean? Is there a sky? Is the air blue? What is scattering? Popper's vision of how knowledge is constructed accounts for this complex notion of our minds coming to solve such problems: Rand's on the other hand is left grappling with why we do not "observe the facts of reality" as she, and other objectivists such as Thomas Miovas, claim we can.