The Theory of Anything

This week we had the pleasure of interviewing Michael Golding, M.D, who is a psychiatric physician. He is also heavily influenced by the philosophical ideas of David Deutsch and Karl Popper. At one point he calls himself a proponent of homeschooling and Taking Children Seriously. Together we wrestle with what critical rationalism and the universal explainer hypothesis suggests about mental illness and human creativity.Steven Peck's "My Madness"⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Bruce examines how effectively critical rationalism can ground the non-aggression principle (NAP)—the libertarian idea that, in some formulation, it is morally wrong to initiate violence.But does it really make sense to interpret all areas of law through this single principle? Might it be better replaced by an alternative, such as a principle of least coercion? And what, from a critical rationalist perspective, does coercion actually mean? Is it a theory with substantial moral content, or an easy-to-vary principle that ultimately collapses into “coercion is whatever I dislike”?And how might we test between these alternating views?Bonus: What did Karl Popper think of Thomas Szasz's theories?⁠⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠

In this video podcast, Bruce makes his boldest statement yet about probability. He dives into David Deutsch’s lecture “Physics Without Probability”—as well as our Episode 100 interview with Deutsch—to unpack the core argument.Bruce carefully works through the mathematical details of Deutsch’s claim that probability is merely a “flat-earth approximation.” As best as he can make sense of it, however, the argument just doesn’t add up. In fact, Bruce concludes that Deutsch’s own reasoning seems to imply that probability is not at all comparable to a flat-earth approximation.From there, he methodically explores whether this long-running debate about probability is really a case of word essentialism—an argument over definitions rather than a substantive difference.He closes with an impassioned plea: if someone out there truly understands Deutsch’s argument, please help him pinpoint exactly where he’s going wrong.⁠⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠

This week Bruce takes a deep dive into the epistemological ideas in Jonathan Rauch’s book The Constitution of Knowledge. Rauch is a fan of Karl Popper and a former guest on this show. He makes the case that the creation of objective knowledge relies on institutions and norms as much individuals. All claims must be open to criticism and not based on authority. This applies not just to science but to journalism, law, and all areas where humans seek to fallibly move closer to truth. Bruce considers how these claims relate to critical rationalism, specifically Deutsch’s conception of static vs dynamic societies. Does this provide another clue as to why we got stuck in static societies for so many millennia?⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠⁠

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

In our shortest episode ever, Bruce continues his exploration of the concept of concepts by looking at "knowledge" as a concept rather than a theory. And of course along the the way he pushes back again several critical rationalist dogmas.⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

Bruce looks at what makes sense—and doesn’t—about popular theories on knowledge promoted by CritRats (critical rationalists on X). He looks at how much these theories align, and don’t align, with what David Deutsch has actually said about knowledge.⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

A curious Twitter exchange with David Deutsch prompts Bruce to explore what Deutsch and other critical rationalists mean when they assert that randomness doesn’t truly exist.⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

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

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

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

This week we welcome back Micah Redding of the Christian Transhumanist podcast. We had a joyful conversation touching on religion, science fiction, and teleology. We look at the ways science fiction and fantasy triggers our moral intuitions regarding what kind of universe we live in with respect to meaning. Do we live in an inherently meaningful universe (teleology); a meaning neutral universe in line with existentialism, materialism, or naturalism; or an actively-malevolent Lovecraftian universe?⁠⁠Support us on Patreon

aka "The Popper vs Campbell Beatdown!"At long last! The showdown you've all been waiting for! These two giants of epistemology meet in the ring and fight it out for dominance!Bruce continues his exploration of evolutionary epistemology, or the idea that all knowledge creation in nature is analogous to natural selection. Specifically, Bruce discusses how Karl Popper’s critical rationalism is—and is not—related to Donald Campbell’s concept of evolutionary epistemology, which it seems Popper mostly endorsed. But is Popper’s conjecture and refutation really the same as Campbell’s blind variation and selective retention? And would Popper have agreed with David Deutsch that "All an animal's knowledge is in its genes?" (In fact, Popper explicitly answers that question! Multiple times! Tune in to find out!)⁠Support us on Patreon

Bruce compares Donald Campbell’s evolutionary epistemology and David Deutsch’s ideas on infinite knowledge growth. What is knowledge growth? Is it a rare thing limited to only biological evolution and human ideas, as Deutsch seems to argue? (Does he argue that?) Or is it a ubiquitous process that happens all around us at all levels of nature as Campbell argues?Is knowledge created in human minds an incremental process, as Campbell might emphasize, based on blind variation and selection? Or as Deutsch might emphasize, is this a cosmically significant, open-ended process based on creativity and explanation?Can these two great thinkers ideas be reconciled or are they in contradiction to each other?⁠Support us on Patreon

In this shorter episode Bruce takes a deep dive into logical fallacies. How useful are logical fallacies? Does pointing out a logical fallacy help correct errors? Does doing so make us more rational? Can we become more logical by avoiding ad hominem attacks, not straw-manning or appealing to authority, and avoiding slippery slopes? And is there a difference between a logical fallacy and a rational fallacy? If so, which is more important?⁠Support us on Patreon

In our previous episode covering Strevens' critique of Popper, we briefly touched on why Bruce believes it it a mistake for CritRats to say they don't believe in beliefs. This time Bruce takes a deep dive into beliefs -- and walks back his previous statement a bit. Do humans need beliefs? Are beliefs dangerous? What is the critical rationalist position on beliefs? What did Popper say? And can we even realistically live without beliefs?And along the way, Bruce criticizes "the disobedience criteria" as a way to make his point about the value -- and dangers -- of mythic belief systems and why we need them and why they can confuse us rationally. ⁠Support us on Patreon

This week Bruce puts Popper on trial. Specifically, through the lens of Michael Stevens’s book, The Knowledge Machine, which argues that science works because it follows the “iron law of explanation” where scientists must (at least in public) put aside philosophy, politics, and theology and only follow empirical evidence. Bruce asks, how compatible is this view with the epistemology of Karl Popper?And does Strevens' critique of Popper ring true? Or is it a strawman?

This week we interview Logan Chipkin. Logan is a writer and author of several books. Recently he co-authored and published The Sovereign Child about raising children without coercion, and The Lords of the Cosmos, which tells the story of progress through the lens of good philosophy. Logan is also the president of Conjecture Institute, which is a brand new organization dedicated to promoting the worldview of Karl Popper and David Deutsch. (Follow on X)Here we discuss the New Right vs libertarianism. We consider: What is the core difference between liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism? Why are so many libertarians into conspiracy theories? How are we to think about Popperian arguments against utopianism applied to libertarians? Does it make sense for an anarcho-capitalist to be hawkish on military intervention in places like Ukraine? And why have mainstream conservatives strayed so far from making intellectual arguments for their positions as they may have in the days or Milton Friedman?What criticisms can be correctly leveled against the Right today, especially economically but also in terms of their methods. And what does the New Right 'get right' according to Logan?Right wing resources suggested by Logan:The DispatchCommentary Magazine PodcastNational Review PodcastThe Politically Incorrect Guide to American HistoryThe Right: The Hundred-Year War for American ConservatismRadicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement⁠Support us on Patreon

This week we talk to Micah Redding, the host of the Christian Transhumanist podcast. We discuss: What is the significance of a singularity? What is free will from a many worlds perspective? Does Omega Point cosmology solve the problem of evil? And most importantly, will my sweet dog Jojo join me in the afterlife?

This week we had the absolute honor of interviewing Jonathan Rauch. Rauch is an extremely influential public intellectual (journalist and author) who is also a Popperian. His 1993 book, Kindly Inquisitors, makes the epistemic case for free speech. It is a stone cold classic that will be with us for a long time. In his 2021 sequel, The Constitution of Knowledge, he considers how society collectively produces knowledge and the dangers of misinformation. He has also written a book that provided the “intellectual framework” for the case for same sex marriage. (link) And though he says he's a Jewish atheist, his latest book, Cross Purposes, is a critical, yet reverential, book on Christianity making the case that our society needs more and not less Christianity. Follow Jonathan Rauch on X.⁠Support us on Patreon