{"version":"https://jsonfeed.org/version/1","title":"Increments","home_page_url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com","feed_url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/json","description":"Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. \r\n\r\nBribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","_fireside":{"subtitle":"Science, Philosophy, Epistemology, Mayhem","pubdate":"2025-04-17T14:00:00.000-07:00","explicit":false,"copyright":"2025 by Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani","owner":"Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani","image":"https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/3/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/cover.jpg?v=18"},"items":[{"id":"96bd27a0-94ea-4390-bb03-cb7fd1fe85b7","title":"#84 - A Primer on Not Born Yesterday by Hugo Mercier","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/84","content_text":"Some thoughts (arguments?) on Hugo Mercier's Not Born Yesterday, which advances the thesis that humans are not as gullible as is commonly thought. This is our second episode on Mercier's work, and we're as intrigued as ever. But this time we have different interpretations of his thesis, so it's a good thing the man himself is coming on soon to sort us out. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nIf humans are less gullible than is commonly believed \nEvolution of Communication Theory\nGazelles jumping in the air \nAre humans too stubborn? Is one of your hosts who shall go unnamed too stubborn? \nWhen do humans actually change their minds? \nDoes Mercier's work conflict with Popper?\nHow much of our reasoning is motivated reasoning? How much is social conformity? \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nBecome a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nDid you know that \"gullible\" isn't in the dictionary? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eSome thoughts (arguments?) on \u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Not-Born-Yesterday-Science-Believe/dp/0691178704\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eHugo Mercier\u0026#39;s Not Born Yesterday\u003c/a\u003e, which advances the thesis that humans are not as gullible as is commonly thought. This is our second episode on Mercier\u0026#39;s work, and we\u0026#39;re as intrigued as ever. But this time we have different interpretations of his thesis, so it\u0026#39;s a good thing the man himself is coming on soon to sort us out. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIf humans are less gullible than is commonly believed \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvolution of Communication Theory\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGazelles jumping in the air \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAre humans too stubborn? Is one of your hosts who shall go unnamed too stubborn? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhen do humans actually change their minds? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoes Mercier\u0026#39;s work conflict with Popper?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow much of our reasoning is motivated reasoning? How much is social conformity? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecome a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDid you know that \u0026quot;gullible\u0026quot; isn\u0026#39;t in the dictionary? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"A discussion on Hugo Mercier's Not Born Yesterday. ","date_published":"2025-04-17T14:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/96bd27a0-94ea-4390-bb03-cb7fd1fe85b7.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":66878483,"duration_in_seconds":4179}]},{"id":"86e1b3be-036b-4c37-8930-3dbd17ad3dab","title":"#83 - The Anxious Generation Round II: Alternative Explanations","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/83","content_text":"Round two on the anxious generation. Well, honestly, round three. But we had a false start with round two, which is why this episode is a little late in coming. If you want to hear the gory, data-heavy details of our second attempt, you can access the episode by becoming a patron (was there ever a better sell?). \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhether the rise in self-harm rates was due to reporting changes\nWhether education and common core could be affecting mental health\nWhether cultural pessimism is on the rise \nCyberbullying \nMartin Gurri's thesis on the digital revolution \nHow Vaden will handle social media with his kids\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nDavid Wallace Wells opinion piece \nOur patreon episode on David Wallace Wells' thesis \nPeter Gray on common core \nRevolt of the Public \n\n\nErrata\n\n\nBen said The Revolt of the Public was written in 2014. It was written in 2018. \nVaden said he would list all four of Haidt's points about why girls are uniquely vulnerable to negative effects of social media, and only got halfway in before forgetting he said that. The four reasons Haidt gives are:\n\n\nGirls are more affected by visual social comparison and perfectionism\nGirls' aggression is more relational\nGirls more easily share emotions and disorders\nGirls are more subject to predation and harassment\n\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nHere is a story. In 2007, Apple released the iPhone, initiating the smartphone revolution that would quickly transform the world. In 2010, it added a front-facing camera, helping shift the social-media landscape toward images, especially selfies. Partly as a result, in the five years that followed, the nature of childhood and especially adolescence was fundamentally changed — a “great rewiring,” in the words of the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt — such that between 2010 and 2015 mental health and well-being plummeted and suffering and despair exploded, particularly among teenage girls.\n\nFor young women, rates of hospitalization for nonfatal self-harm in the United States, which had bottomed out in 2009, started to rise again, according to data reported to the C.D.C., taking a leap beginning in 2012 and another beginning in 2016, and producing, over about a decade, an alarming 48 percent increase in such emergency room visits among American girls ages 15 to 19 and a shocking 188 percent increase among girls ages 10 to14.\n\nHere is another story. In 2011, as part of the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a new set of guidelines that recommended that teenage girls should be screened annually for depression by their primary care physicians and that same year required that insurance providers cover such screenings in full. In 2015, H.H.S. finally mandated a coding change, proposed by the World Health Organization almost two decades before, that required hospitals to record whether an injury was self-inflicted or accidental — and which seemingly overnight nearly doubled rates for self-harm across all demographic groups. Soon thereafter, the coding of suicidal ideation was also updated. \n\n\nDavid Wallace Wells, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/smartphones-social-media-mental-health-teens.html \n\n\nStudies confirm that as adolescents moved their social lives online, the nature of bullying began to change. One systematic review of studies from 1998 to 2017 found a decrease in face-to-face bullying among boys but an increase among girls, especially among younger adolescent girls.[47] ... According to one major U.S. survey, these high rates of cyberbullying have persisted (though have not increased) between 2011 and 2019. Throughout the period, approximately one in 10 high school boys and one in five high school girls experienced cyberbullying each year.[49] In other words, the move online made bullying and harassment a larger part of daily life for girls.\n\\\n- Haidt, The Anxious Generation p. 170\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nBecome a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nAnyone you want to cyberbully into body dismorphia? Tell us who to send photos of our hot bods to over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eRound two on the anxious generation. Well, honestly, round three. But we had a false start with round two, which is why this episode is a little late in coming. If you want to hear the gory, data-heavy details of our second attempt, you can access the episode by becoming \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/c/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ea patron\u003c/a\u003e (was there ever a better sell?). \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether the rise in self-harm rates was due to reporting changes\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether education and common core could be affecting mental health\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether cultural pessimism is on the rise \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCyberbullying \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin Gurri\u0026#39;s thesis on the digital revolution \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow Vaden will handle social media with his kids\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid Wallace Wells \u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/smartphones-social-media-mental-health-teens.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eopinion piece\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/posts/subscriber-ep-23-124502992\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eOur patreon episode\u003c/a\u003e on David Wallace Wells\u0026#39; thesis \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeter Gray on \u003ca href=\"https://petergray.substack.com/p/letter-51-common-core-is-the-main\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ecommon core\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Public-Crisis-Authority-Millennium/dp/1732265143/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eRevolt of the Public\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eErrata\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen said \u003cem\u003eThe Revolt of the Public\u003c/em\u003e was written in 2014. It was written in 2018. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden said he would list all four of Haidt\u0026#39;s points about why girls are uniquely vulnerable to negative effects of social media, and only got halfway in before forgetting he said that. The four reasons Haidt gives are:\n\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGirls are more affected by visual social comparison and perfectionism\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGirls\u0026#39; aggression is more relational\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGirls more easily share emotions and disorders\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGirls are more subject to predation and harassment\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere is a story. In 2007, Apple released the iPhone, initiating the smartphone revolution that would quickly transform the world. In 2010, it added a front-facing camera, helping shift the social-media landscape toward images, especially selfies. Partly as a result, in the five years that followed, the nature of childhood and especially adolescence was fundamentally changed — a “great rewiring,” in the words of the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt — such that between 2010 and 2015 mental health and well-being plummeted and suffering and despair exploded, particularly among teenage girls.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFor young women, rates of hospitalization for nonfatal self-harm in the United States, which had bottomed out in 2009, started to rise again, according to data reported to the C.D.C., taking a leap beginning in 2012 and another beginning in 2016, and producing, over about a decade, an alarming 48 percent increase in such emergency room visits among American girls ages 15 to 19 and a shocking 188 percent increase among girls ages 10 to14.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHere is another story. In 2011, as part of the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a new set of guidelines that recommended that teenage girls should be screened annually for depression by their primary care physicians and that same year required that insurance providers cover such screenings in full. In 2015, H.H.S. finally mandated a coding change, proposed by the World Health Organization almost two decades before, that required hospitals to record whether an injury was self-inflicted or accidental — and which seemingly overnight nearly doubled rates for self-harm across all demographic groups. Soon thereafter, the coding of suicidal ideation was also updated. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid Wallace Wells, \u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/smartphones-social-media-mental-health-teens.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/smartphones-social-media-mental-health-teens.html\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eStudies confirm that as adolescents moved their social lives online, the nature of bullying began to change. One systematic review of studies from 1998 to 2017 found a decrease in face-to-face bullying among boys but an increase among girls, especially among younger adolescent girls.[47] ... According to one major U.S. survey, these high rates of cyberbullying have persisted (though have not increased) between 2011 and 2019. Throughout the period, approximately one in 10 high school boys and one in five high school girls experienced cyberbullying each year.[49] In other words, the move online made bullying and harassment a larger part of daily life for girls.\u003cbr\u003e\n\\\u003cbr\u003e\n- Haidt, The Anxious Generation p. 170\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecome a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAnyone you want to cyberbully into body dismorphia? Tell us who to send photos of our hot bods to over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Are there other hypotheses on the rise in self-harm rates among adolescents? Not any good ones, it turns out. ","date_published":"2025-03-27T14:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/86e1b3be-036b-4c37-8930-3dbd17ad3dab.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":78086477,"duration_in_seconds":4880}]},{"id":"99e476d9-0cd2-491a-8be4-b20f154f9019","title":"#82 - Are Screens Really That Bad? Critiquing Jon Haidt's \"The Anxious Generation\" ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/82","content_text":"Anxiety, dispair, loneliness, depression -- all we need is a social media recession! A popular thesis is that All The Bad Things things are on the rise among adolescents because of social media, a view popularized in Jon Haidt's 2024 book The Anxious Generation. Haidt is calling for an end of the \"phone-based childhood\" and hoping that schools banish all screens for the benefit of its students. \n\nBut is it true than social media is causing this mental health crisis? Is it true that there even is a mental health crisis? We do a deep dive into Haidt's book to discuss the evidence. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nA weird citation trend in philosophy \nWhether there is a mental health crisis among teens \nSome inconsistencies in Haidt's data on mental health outcomes \nCorrelation vs causation, and whether Haidt establishes causation \nWhy on earth do the quality of these studies suck so much?\nWhether Haidt's conclusions are justified\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nThe Anxious Generation \nJon Haidt's After Babel Substack \nAfter Babel's main post attempting to establish causation, and the response to critics. \nCollaborative review doc on adolescent mood disorders \nCollaborative review doc on social media and mental health \nMatthew B Jane's criticism of Haidt's meta-analysis \nAaron Brown's criticism \nStuart Ritchie's criticism \nPeter Gray's criticism \n\n\nDatasets\n\n\nUnaggregated life satisfaction data for boys/girls ages 11/13/15 across 44 countries\nAustralia hospital admissions due to self harm \nFrance hospital admissions due to self harm\nCanada\nOntario \n# Socials\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nBecome a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nNo screen time for a month. If you send an email to incrementspodcast@gmail.com, we're taking away your iPad. \n\nImage credit: Is social media causing psychological harm to youth and young adults?. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eAnxiety, dispair, loneliness, depression -- all we need is a social media recession! A popular thesis is that All The Bad Things things are on the rise among adolescents because of social media, a view popularized in Jon Haidt\u0026#39;s 2024 book \u003cem\u003eThe Anxious Generation\u003c/em\u003e. Haidt is calling for an end of the \u0026quot;phone-based childhood\u0026quot; and hoping that schools banish all screens for the benefit of its students. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBut is it true than social media is causing this mental health crisis? Is it true that there even is a mental health crisis? We do a deep dive into Haidt\u0026#39;s book to discuss the evidence. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA weird citation trend in philosophy \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether there is a mental health crisis among teens \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSome inconsistencies in Haidt\u0026#39;s data on mental health outcomes \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorrelation vs causation, and whether Haidt establishes causation \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy on earth do the quality of these studies suck so much?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether Haidt\u0026#39;s conclusions are justified\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Anxious-Generation-Rewiring-Childhood-Epidemic/dp/0593655036\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Anxious Generation\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJon Haidt\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://www.afterbabel.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAfter Babel Substack\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAfter Babel\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003emain post\u003c/a\u003e attempting to establish causation, and \u003ca href=\"https://www.afterbabel.com/p/why-some-researchers-think-im-wrong\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ethe response to critics\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://docs.google.com/document/d/1diMvsMeRphUH7E6D1d_J7R6WbDdgnzFHDHPx9HXzR5o/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.rqnt07sjvlcd\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCollaborative review doc on adolescent mood disorders\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-olnkPyWcgF5BiAtBEy0/edit?tab=t.0\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCollaborative review doc on social media and mental health\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://matthewbjane.github.io/blog-posts/blog-post-6.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMatthew B Jane\u0026#39;s criticism of Haidt\u0026#39;s meta-analysis\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-statistically-flawed-evidence-that-social-media-is-causing-the-teen-mental-health-crisis/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAaron Brown\u0026#39;s criticism\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/dont-panic-about-social-media-harming-your-childs-mental-health-the-evidence-is-weak-2230571\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eStuart Ritchie\u0026#39;s criticism\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://petergray.substack.com/p/45-the-importance-of-critical-analyses\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ePeter Gray\u0026#39;s criticism\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eDatasets\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://data-browser.hbsc.org/measure/life-satisfaction/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eUnaggregated life satisfaction data for boys/girls ages 11/13/15 across 44 countries\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/intentional-self-harm-hospitalisations/intentional-self-harm-hospitalisations-by-age-sex\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAustralia hospital admissions due to self harm\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2024-05/ER1300EMB.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eFrance hospital admissions due to self harm\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://yourhealthsystem.cihi.ca/hsp/inbrief?lang=en\u0026_gl=1*rtyvsz*_gcl_au*MTA5ODMwMzc5MS4xNzM3NTAyMTk0*_ga*MTM0Njk4MTc4MS4xNzM3NTAyMTk0*_ga_44X3CK377B*MTczNzUwMjE5NC4xLjAuMTczNzUwMjIwNi4wLjAuMA..#!/indicators/083/self-harm-including-suicide/;mapC1;mapLevel2;sex(F);trend(C5001,C300);/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCanada\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.cmaj.ca/content/195/36/E1210\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eOntario\u003c/a\u003e \n# Socials\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecome a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eNo screen time for a month. If you send an email to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e, we\u0026#39;re taking away your iPad. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eImage credit: \u003ca href=\"https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/social-media-causing-psychological-harm-youth-and-young\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIs social media causing psychological harm to youth and young adults?\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"A review of Jonathan Haidt's newest book on social media and adolescent mental health. Are we losing a generation to TikTok, or have social scientists forgotten how to make causal claims?","date_published":"2025-03-06T09:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/99e476d9-0cd2-491a-8be4-b20f154f9019.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":108500672,"duration_in_seconds":6769}]},{"id":"26aab847-c429-4211-8056-acb0696c4551","title":"#81 - What Does Critical Rationalism Get Wrong? (w/ Kasra) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/81","content_text":"As whores for criticism, we wanted to have Kasra on to discuss his essay The Deutschian Deadend. Kasra claims that Popper and Deutsch are fundamentally wrong in some important ways, and that many of their ideas will forever remain in the \"footnotes of the history of philosophy\". Does he change our mind or do we change his? \n\nFollow Kasra on twitter and subscribe to his blog, Bits of Wonder. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nHas Popper had of a cultural impact? \nThe differences between Popper, Deutsch, and Deutsch's bulldogs. \nIs observation really theory laden?\nThe hierarchy of reliability: do different disciplines have different methods of criticism? \nThe ladder of abstractions \nThe difference between Popper and Deutsch on truth and abstraction \nThe Deutschian community's reaction to the essay \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nBruce Nielson's podcast on verification and falsification: https://open.spotify.com/episode/38tGZnBlHK3vZHjyLgSs4C\nPopper on certainty: Chapter 22. Analytical Remarks on Certainty in Objective Knowledge\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nBy the nature of Deutsch and Popper’s ideas being abstract, this essay will also necessarily be abstract. To combat this, let me ground the whole essay in a concrete empirical bet: Popper’s ideas about epistemology, and David Deutsch’s extensions of them, will forever remain in the footnotes of the history of philosophy. Popper’s falsificationism, which was the main idea that he’s widely known for today, will continue to remain the only thing that he’s widely known for. The frustrating fact that Wittgenstein is widely regarded as a more influential philosopher than Popper will continue to remain true. Critical rationalism will never be widely recognized as the “one correct epistemology,” as the actual explanation (or even the precursor to an explanation) of knowledge, progress, and creativity. Instead it will be viewed, like many philosophical schools before it, as a useful and ambitious project that ultimately failed. In other words, critical rationalism is a kind of philosophical deadend: the Deutschian deadend.\n- Kasra in the Deutschian Deadend\n\nThere are many things you can directly observe, and which are “manifestly true” to you: what you’re wearing at the moment, which room of your house you’re in, whether the sun has set yet, whether you are running out of breath, whether your parents are alive, whether you feel a piercing pain in your back, whether you feel warmth in your palms—and so on and so forth. These are not perfectly certain absolute truths about reality, and there’s always more to know about them—but it is silly to claim that we have absolutely no claim on their truth either. I also think there are even such “obvious truths” in the realm of science—like the claim that the earth is not flat, that your body is made of cells, and that everyday objects follow predictable laws of motion.\n\n- Kasra in the Deutschian Deadend\n\nDeutsch writes:\n\n\nSome philosophical arguments, including the argument against solipsism, are far more compelling than any scientific argument. Indeed, every scientific argument assumes the falsity not only of solipsism, but also of other philosophical theories including any number of variants of solipsism that might contradict specific parts of the scientific argument.\n\n\nThere are two different mistakes happening here.\nFirst, what Deutsch is doing is assuming a strict logical dependency between any one piece of our knowledge and every other piece of it. He says that our knowledge of science (say, of astrophysics) implicitly relies on other philosophical arguments about solipsism, epistemology, and metaphysics. But anyone who has thought about the difference between philosophy and science recognizes that in practice they can be studied and argued about independently. We can make progress on our understanding of celestial mechanics without making any crucial assumption about metaphysics. We can make progress studying neurons without solving the hard problem of consciousness or the question of free will.\n\n- Kasra in the Deutschian Deadend, quoting Deutsch on Solipsism \n\nAt that time I learnt from Popper that it was not scientifically disgraceful to have one's hypothesis falsified. That was the best news I had had for a long time. I was persuaded by Popper, in fact, to formulate my electrical hypotheses of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic transmission so precisely and rigorously that they invited falsification - and, in fact, that is what happened to them a few years later, very largely by my colleagues and myself, when in 1951 we started to do intra- cellular recording from motoneurones. Thanks to my tutelage by Popper, I was able to accept joyfully this death of the brain-child which I had nurtured for nearly two decades and was immediately able to contribute as much as I could to the chemical transmission story which was the Dale and Loewi brain-child.\n\n- John C. Eccles on Popper, All Life is Problem Solving, p.12\n\nIn order to state the problem more clearly, I should like to reformulate it as follows.\nWe may distinguish here between three types of theory.\nFirst, logical and mathematical theories.\nSecond, empirical and scientific theories.\nThird, philosophical or metaphysical theories.\n\n-Popper on the \"hierarchy of reliability\", C\u0026amp;R p.266\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nBecome a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nAre you a solipsist? If so, send yourself an email over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Special Guest: Kasra.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eAs whores for criticism, we wanted to have Kasra on to discuss his essay \u003ca href=\"https://www.bitsofwonder.co/p/the-deutschian-deadend\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Deutschian Deadend\u003c/a\u003e. Kasra claims that Popper and Deutsch are fundamentally wrong in some important ways, and that many of their ideas will forever remain in the \u0026quot;footnotes of the history of philosophy\u0026quot;. Does he change our mind or do we change his? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFollow Kasra on \u003ca href=\"https://x.com/kasratweets\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003etwitter\u003c/a\u003e and subscribe to his blog, \u003ca href=\"https://www.bitsofwonder.co/p/the-deutschian-deadend\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eBits of Wonder\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHas Popper had of a cultural impact? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe differences between Popper, Deutsch, and Deutsch\u0026#39;s bulldogs. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs observation really theory laden?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe hierarchy of reliability: do different disciplines have different methods of criticism? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe ladder of abstractions \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe difference between Popper and Deutsch on truth and abstraction \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Deutschian community\u0026#39;s reaction to the essay \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBruce Nielson\u0026#39;s podcast on verification and falsification: \u003ca href=\"https://open.spotify.com/episode/38tGZnBlHK3vZHjyLgSs4C\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://open.spotify.com/episode/38tGZnBlHK3vZHjyLgSs4C\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopper on certainty: Chapter 22. Analytical Remarks on Certainty in Objective Knowledge\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy the nature of Deutsch and Popper’s ideas being abstract, this essay will also necessarily be abstract. To combat this, let me ground the whole essay in a concrete empirical bet: Popper’s ideas about epistemology, and David Deutsch’s extensions of them, will forever remain in the footnotes of the history of philosophy. Popper’s falsificationism, which was the main idea that he’s widely known for today, will continue to remain the only thing that he’s widely known for. The frustrating fact that Wittgenstein is widely regarded as a more influential philosopher than Popper will continue to remain true. Critical rationalism will never be widely recognized as the “one correct epistemology,” as the actual explanation (or even the precursor to an explanation) of knowledge, progress, and creativity. Instead it will be viewed, like many philosophical schools before it, as a useful and ambitious project that ultimately failed. In other words, critical rationalism is a kind of philosophical deadend: the Deutschian deadend.\u003cbr\u003e\n- Kasra in the Deutschian Deadend\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere are many things you can directly observe, and which are “manifestly true” to you: what you’re wearing at the moment, which room of your house you’re in, whether the sun has set yet, whether you are running out of breath, whether your parents are alive, whether you feel a piercing pain in your back, whether you feel warmth in your palms—and so on and so forth. These are not \u003cem\u003eperfectly certain absolute truths\u003c/em\u003e about reality, and there’s always more to know about them—but it is silly to claim that we have \u003cem\u003eabsolutely no claim\u003c/em\u003e on their truth either. I also think there are even such “obvious truths” in the realm of science—like the claim that the earth is not flat, that your body is made of cells, and that everyday objects follow predictable laws of motion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Kasra in the Deutschian Deadend\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDeutsch writes:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome philosophical arguments, including the argument against solipsism, are far more compelling than any scientific argument. Indeed, every scientific argument assumes the falsity not only of solipsism, but also of other philosophical theories including any number of variants of solipsism that might contradict specific parts of the scientific argument.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere are two different mistakes happening here.\u003cbr\u003e\nFirst, what Deutsch is doing is assuming a strict logical dependency between any one piece of our knowledge and every other piece of it. He says that our knowledge of science (say, of astrophysics) implicitly relies on other philosophical arguments about solipsism, epistemology, and metaphysics. But anyone who has thought about the difference between philosophy and science recognizes that in practice they can be studied and argued about \u003cem\u003eindependently\u003c/em\u003e. We can make progress on our understanding of celestial mechanics without making any crucial assumption about metaphysics. We can make progress studying neurons without solving the hard problem of consciousness or the question of free will.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Kasra in the Deutschian Deadend, quoting Deutsch on Solipsism \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAt that time I learnt from Popper that it was not scientifically disgraceful to have one\u0026#39;s hypothesis falsified. That was the best news I had had for a long time. I was persuaded by Popper, in fact, to formulate my electrical hypotheses of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic transmission so precisely and rigorously that they invited falsification - and, in fact, that is what happened to them a few years later, very largely by my colleagues and myself, when in 1951 we started to do intra- cellular recording from motoneurones. Thanks to my tutelage by Popper, I was able to accept joyfully this death of the brain-child which I had nurtured for nearly two decades and was immediately able to contribute as much as I could to the chemical transmission story which was the Dale and Loewi brain-child.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- John C. Eccles on Popper, All Life is Problem Solving, p.12\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to state the problem more clearly, I should like to reformulate it as follows.\u003cbr\u003e\nWe may distinguish here between three types of theory.\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eFirst\u003c/strong\u003e, logical and mathematical theories.\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eSecond,\u003c/strong\u003e empirical and scientific theories.\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eThird,\u003c/strong\u003e philosophical or metaphysical theories.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e-Popper on the \u0026quot;hierarchy of reliability\u0026quot;, C\u0026amp;R p.266\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecome a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAre you a solipsist? If so, send yourself an email over to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Kasra.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We have Kasra on to discuss his essay \"'The Deutschian Deadend,\" about the ways he thinks the philosophies of Karl Popper and David Deutsch are fundamentally wrong. ","date_published":"2025-02-13T16:15:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/26aab847-c429-4211-8056-acb0696c4551.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":95121239,"duration_in_seconds":5945}]},{"id":"c59b4294-7316-4f4a-bb7c-0ec200a100b0","title":"#80 (C\u0026R Series, Chap. 7) - Dare to Know: Immanuel Kant and the Enlightenment  ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/80","content_text":"Immanuel Kant was popular at his death. The whole town emptied out to see him. His last words were \"it is good\". But was his philosophy any good? In order to find out, we dive into Chapter 7 of Conjectures and Refutations: Kant’s Critique and Cosmology, where Popper rescues Kant's reputation from the clutches of the dastardly German Idealists.  \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nDeontology vs consquentialism vs virtue ethics \nKant's Categorical Imperative\nKant's contributions to cosmology and politics \nKant as a defender of the enlightenment \nRomanticism vs (German) idealism vs critical rationalism \nKant's cosmology and cosmogony \nKant's antimony and his proofs that the universe is both finite and infinite in time \nKant's Copernican revolution and transcendental idealism \nKant's morality \nWhy Popper admired Kant so much, and why he compares him to Socrates\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nEnlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! \"Have courage to use your own understanding!\" --that is the motto of enlightenment.\n\n\nAn Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (Translated by Ted Humphrey, Hackett Publishing, 1992)\n\n\n\n(Alternate translation from Popper: Enlightenment is the emancipation of man from a state of self-imposed tutelage . . . of incapacity to use his own intelligence without external guidance. Such a state of tutelage I call ‘self-imposed’ if it is due, not to lack of intelligence, but to lack of courage or determination to use one’s own intelligence without the help of a leader. Sapere aude! Dare to use your own intelligence! This is the battle-cry of the Enlightenment.)\n\n\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\n\nWhat lesson did Kant draw from these bewildering antinomies? He concluded that our ideas of space and time are inapplicable to the universe as a whole. We can, of course, apply the ideas of space and time to ordinary physical things and physical events. But space and time themselves are neither things nor events: they cannot even be observed: they are more elusive. They are a kind of framework for things and events: something like a system of pigeon-holes, or a filing system, for observations. Space and time are not part of the real empir- ical world of things and events, but rather part of our mental outfit, our apparatus for grasping this world. Their proper use is as instruments of observation: in observing any event we locate it, as a rule, immediately and intuitively in an order of space and time. Thus space and time may be described as a frame of reference which is not based upon experience but intuitively used in experience, and properly applicable to experience. This is why we get into trouble if we misapply the ideas of space and time by using them in a field which transcends all possible experience—as we did in our two proofs about the universe as a whole. \n...\nTo the view which I have just outlined Kant chose to give the ugly and doubly misleading name ‘Transcendental Idealism’. He soon regretted this choice, for it made people believe that he was an idealist in the sense of denying the reality of physical things: that he declared physical things to be mere ideas. Kant hastened to explain that he had only denied that space and time are empirical and real — empirical and real in the sense in which physical things and events are empirical and real. But in vain did he protest. His difficult style sealed his fate: he was to be revered as the father of German Idealism. I suggest that it is time to put this right.\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\n\nKant believed in the Enlightenment. He was its last great defender. I realize that this is not the usual view. While I see Kant as the defender of the Enlightenment, he is more often taken as the founder of the school which destroyed it—of the Romantic School of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. I contend that these two interpretations are incompatible.\n\nFichte, and later Hegel, tried to appropriate Kant as the founder of their school. But Kant lived long enough to reject the persistent advances of Fichte, who proclaimed himself Kant’s successor and heir. In A Public Declaration Concerning Fichte, which is too little known, Kant wrote: ‘May God protect us from our friends. . . . For there are fraudulent and perfidious so-called friends who are scheming for our ruin while speaking the language of good-will.’\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\n\nAs Kant puts it, Copernicus, finding that no progress was being made with the theory of the revolving heavens, broke the deadlock by turning the tables, as it were: he assumed that it is not the heavens which revolve while we the observers stand still, but that we the observers revolve while the heavens stand still. In a similar way, Kant says, the problem of scientific knowledge is to be solved — the problem how an exact science, such as Newtonian theory, is possible, and how it could ever have been found. We must give up the view that we are passive observers, waiting for nature to impress its regularity upon us. Instead we must adopt the view that in digesting our sense-data we actively impress the order and the laws of our intellect upon them. Our cosmos bears the imprint of our minds.\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\n\nFrom Kant the cosmologist, the philosopher of knowledge and of science, I now turn to Kant the moralist. I do not know whether it has been noticed before that the fundamental idea of Kant’s ethics amounts to another Copernican Revolution, analogous in every respect to the one I have described. For Kant makes man the lawgiver of morality just as he makes him the lawgiver of nature. And in doing so he gives back to man his central place both in his moral and in his physical universe. Kant humanized ethics, as he had humanized science.\n...\nKant’s Copernican Revolution in the field of ethics is contained in his doctrine of autonomy—the doctrine that we cannot accept the command of an authority, however exalted, as the ultimate basis of ethics. For whenever we are faced with a command by an authority, it is our responsibility to judge whether this command is moral or immoral. The authority may have power to enforce its commands, and we may be powerless to resist. But unless we are physically prevented from choosing the responsibility remains ours. It is our decision whether to obey a command, whether to accept authority.\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\n\n\nStepping back further to get a still more distant view of Kant’s historical role, we may compare him with Socrates. Both were accused of perverting the state religion, and of corrupting the minds of the young. Both denied the charge; and both stood up for freedom of thought. Freedom meant more to them than absence of constraint; it was for both a way of life.\n...\nTo this Socratic idea of self-sufficiency, which forms part of our western heritage, Kant has given a new meaning in the fields of both knowledge and morals. And he has added to it further the idea of a community of free men—of all men. For he has shown that every man is free; not because he is born free, but because he is born with the burden of responsibility for free decision.\n\n\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nBecome a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nFollow the Kantian Imperative: Stop masturbating and/or/while getting your hair cut, and start sending emails over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eImmanuel Kant was popular at his death. The whole town emptied out to see him. His last words were \u0026quot;it is good\u0026quot;. But was his philosophy any good? In order to find out, we dive into Chapter 7 of Conjectures and Refutations: \u003cem\u003eKant’s Critique and Cosmology,\u003c/em\u003e where Popper rescues Kant\u0026#39;s reputation from the clutches of the dastardly German Idealists.  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeontology vs consquentialism vs virtue ethics \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKant\u0026#39;s Categorical Imperative\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKant\u0026#39;s contributions to cosmology and politics \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKant as a defender of the enlightenment \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomanticism vs (German) idealism vs critical rationalism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKant\u0026#39;s cosmology and cosmogony \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKant\u0026#39;s antimony and his proofs that the universe is both finite and infinite in time \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKant\u0026#39;s Copernican revolution and transcendental idealism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKant\u0026#39;s morality \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy Popper admired Kant so much, and why he compares him to Socrates\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnlightenment is man\u0026#39;s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eImmaturity\u003c/em\u003e is the inability to use one\u0026#39;s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is \u003cem\u003eself-imposed\u003c/em\u003e when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. \u003cem\u003eSapere Aude!\u003c/em\u003e \u0026quot;Have courage to use your own understanding!\u0026quot; --that is the motto of enlightenment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (Translated by Ted Humphrey, Hackett Publishing, 1992)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e(Alternate translation from Popper: Enlightenment is the emancipation of man from a state of self-imposed tutelage . . . of incapacity to use his own intelligence without external guidance. Such a state of tutelage I call ‘self-imposed’ if it is due, not to lack of intelligence, but to lack of courage or determination to use one’s own intelligence without the help of a leader. Sapere aude! Dare to use your own intelligence! This is the battle-cry of the Enlightenment.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat lesson did Kant draw from these bewildering antinomies? He concluded that our ideas of space and time are inapplicable to the universe as a whole. We can, of course, apply the ideas of space and time to ordinary physical things and physical events. But space and time themselves are neither things nor events: they cannot even be observed: they are more elusive. They are a kind of framework for things and events: something like a system of pigeon-holes, or a filing system, for observations. Space and time are not part of the real empir- ical world of things and events, but rather part of our mental outfit, our apparatus for grasping this world. Their proper use is as instruments of observation: in observing any event we locate it, as a rule, immediately and intuitively in an order of space and time. Thus space and time may be described as a frame of reference which is not based upon experience but intuitively used in experience, and properly applicable to experience. This is why we get into trouble if we misapply the ideas of space and time by using them in a field which transcends all possible experience—as we did in our two proofs about the universe as a whole. \u003cbr\u003e\n...\u003cbr\u003e\nTo the view which I have just outlined Kant chose to give the ugly and doubly misleading name ‘Transcendental Idealism’. He soon regretted this choice, for it made people believe that he was an idealist in the sense of denying the reality of physical things: that he declared physical things to be mere ideas. Kant hastened to explain that he had only denied that space and time are empirical and real — empirical and real in the sense in which physical things and events are empirical and real. But in vain did he protest. His difficult style sealed his fate: he was to be revered as the father of German Idealism. I suggest that it is time to put this right.\u003cbr\u003e\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eKant believed in the Enlightenment. He was its last great defender. I realize that this is not the usual view. While I see Kant as the defender of the Enlightenment, he is more often taken as the founder of the school which destroyed it—of the Romantic School of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. I contend that these two interpretations are incompatible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFichte, and later Hegel, tried to appropriate Kant as the founder of their school. But Kant lived long enough to reject the persistent advances of Fichte, who proclaimed himself Kant’s successor and heir. In \u003cem\u003eA Public Declaration Concerning Fichte,\u003c/em\u003e which is too little known, Kant wrote: ‘May God protect us from our friends. . . . For there are fraudulent and perfidious so-called friends who are scheming for our ruin while speaking the language of good-will.’\u003cbr\u003e\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAs Kant puts it, Copernicus, finding that no progress was being made with the theory of the revolving heavens, broke the deadlock by turning the tables, as it were: he assumed that it is not the heavens which revolve while we the observers stand still, but that we the observers revolve while the heavens stand still. In a similar way, Kant says, the problem of scientific knowledge is to be solved — the problem how an exact science, such as Newtonian theory, is possible, and how it could ever have been found. We must give up the view that we are passive observers, waiting for nature to impress its regularity upon us. Instead we must adopt the view that in digesting our sense-data we actively impress the order and the laws of our intellect upon them. Our cosmos bears the imprint of our minds.\u003cbr\u003e\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFrom Kant the cosmologist, the philosopher of knowledge and of science, I now turn to Kant the moralist. I do not know whether it has been noticed before that the fundamental idea of Kant’s ethics amounts to another Copernican Revolution, analogous in every respect to the one I have described. For Kant makes man the lawgiver of morality just as he makes him the lawgiver of nature. And in doing so he gives back to man his central place both in his moral and in his physical universe. Kant humanized ethics, as he had humanized science.\u003cbr\u003e\n...\u003cbr\u003e\nKant’s Copernican Revolution in the field of ethics is contained in his doctrine of autonomy—the doctrine that we cannot accept the command of an authority, however exalted, as the ultimate basis of ethics. For whenever we are faced with a command by an authority, it is our responsibility to judge whether this command is moral or immoral. The authority may have power to enforce its commands, and we may be powerless to resist. But unless we are physically prevented from choosing the responsibility remains ours. It is our decision whether to obey a command, whether to accept authority.\u003cbr\u003e\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStepping back further to get a still more distant view of Kant’s historical role, we may compare him with Socrates. Both were accused of perverting the state religion, and of corrupting the minds of the young. Both denied the charge; and both stood up for freedom of thought. Freedom meant more to them than absence of constraint; it was for both a way of life.\u003cbr\u003e\n...\u003cbr\u003e\nTo this Socratic idea of self-sufficiency, which forms part of our western heritage, Kant has given a new meaning in the fields of both knowledge and morals. And he has added to it further the idea of a community of free men—of all men. For he has shown that every man is free; not because he is born free, but because he is born with the burden of responsibility for free decision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecome a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFollow the Kantian Imperative: Stop masturbating and/or/while getting your hair cut, and start sending emails over to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Back to the Conjectures and Refutations series. We discuss Immanuel Kant and his contributions to ethics, cosmology, politics, and the Enlightenment.","date_published":"2025-01-27T16:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/c59b4294-7316-4f4a-bb7c-0ec200a100b0.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":64122879,"duration_in_seconds":4007}]},{"id":"4003e808-69eb-4f9c-9e27-95bec09cf84c","title":"#79 (Bonus) - The Mitford Sisters","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/79","content_text":"Hope everyone is having a great holiday! Today we're releasing a short lil' bonus episode from the patreon archives before we get back into the serious and professional business of podcasting in the new year. A few months ago, Vaden appeared on the forthcoming Treacherous Jezebels podcast, to discuss the life of Unity Valkyrie Freeman-Mitford, the most treacherous of jezebels. Her biography is... shall we say... quite something. Even Hitler had to get his rocks off every once and a while. \n\n(Links to Treacherous Jezebels podcast will be added when their website is up!) \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWho are the Mitford Sisters, and why are they so friggen fascinating \nThe squalid life of Unity Mitford in particular \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nUnity Mitford's Wikipedia Page \nJessica Mitford's autobigraphy Hons and Rebels \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nBecome a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nSo did she bang Hitler... or didn't she? Email us the raw facts at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eHope everyone is having a great holiday! Today we\u0026#39;re releasing a short lil\u0026#39; bonus episode from the patreon archives before we get back into the serious and professional business of podcasting in the new year. A few months ago, Vaden appeared on the forthcoming Treacherous Jezebels podcast, to discuss the life of Unity Valkyrie Freeman-Mitford, the most treacherous of jezebels. Her biography is... shall we say... quite something. Even Hitler had to get his rocks off every once and a while. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e(Links to Treacherous Jezebels podcast will be added when their website is up!) \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWho are the Mitford Sisters, and why are they so friggen fascinating \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe squalid life of Unity Mitford in particular \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnity Mitford\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Mitford\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eWikipedia Page\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJessica Mitford\u0026#39;s autobigraphy \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hons_and_Rebels\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eHons and Rebels \u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecome a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSo did she bang Hitler... or didn\u0026#39;t she? Email us the raw facts at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Vaden was invited on to the forthcoming Treacherous Jezebels podcast to discuss Unity Mitford and her family. Ever wonder about Adolf Hitler's sex life? This episode has you covered.  ","date_published":"2024-12-28T15:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/4003e808-69eb-4f9c-9e27-95bec09cf84c.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":23554924,"duration_in_seconds":1472}]},{"id":"48fd44b7-2042-46b3-bd5f-0f0badb0fe75","title":"#78 - What could Karl Popper have learned from Vladimir Nabokov? (w/ Brian Boyd)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/78","content_text":"Where do you arrive if you follow Vaden's obsessions to their terminus? You arrive at Brian Boyd, the world expert on the two titanic thinkers of the 20th century: Karl Popper and Vladimir Nabokov. \n\nBoyd wrote his PhD thesis on Nabokov's  1969 novel Ada, impressing Nabokov's wife Vera so much that he was invited to catalogue Nabokov's unpublished archives. This led to Boyd's two-volume biography of Nabokov, which Vera kept on her beside table. Boyd also developed an interest in Popper, and began research for his biography in 1996, which was then promptly delayed as he worked on his book, On The Origin of Stories, which we [dedicated episode #50]((https://www.incrementspodcast.com/50) to.\n\nIn this episode, we ask Professor Boyd to contrast and compare his two subjects, by addressing the question: What could Karl Popper have learned from Vladimir Nabokov?\n\nWe discuss\n\n\nHow Brian discovered Nabokov \nDid Nabokov have a philosophy?\nNabokov's life as a scientist \nWas Nabokov simply a writer of puzzles?\nHow much should author intentions matter when interpreting literature?\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nBoyd's book on the evolutionary origins of art and literature: On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction\nOur episode on the above \nStalking Nabokov, by Boyd. \nBoyd's book on Pale Fire: Nabokov's Pale Fire: The Magic of Artistic Discovery\nAdaOnline, annotated notes on Ada by Boyd. \n Art historian and one of Popper's close friends, Ernst Gombrich \n# Errata \nThe Burghers of Calais is by Balzac rather than Rodin \nThe Nabokov family fled Leningrad rather than Petrograd (as Petersburg had become during WWI). \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nBecome a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nDo you love words, or ideas? Email us one but not the other at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Brian Boyd.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWhere do you arrive if you follow Vaden\u0026#39;s obsessions to their terminus? You arrive at Brian Boyd, the world expert on the two titanic thinkers of the 20th century: Karl Popper and Vladimir Nabokov. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBoyd wrote his PhD thesis on Nabokov\u0026#39;s  1969 novel \u003cem\u003eAda\u003c/em\u003e, impressing Nabokov\u0026#39;s wife Vera so much that he was invited to catalogue Nabokov\u0026#39;s unpublished archives. This led to Boyd\u0026#39;s two-volume biography of Nabokov, which Vera kept on her beside table. Boyd also developed an interest in Popper, and began research for his biography in 1996, which was then promptly delayed as he worked on his book, \u003cem\u003eOn The Origin of Stories\u003c/em\u003e, which we [dedicated episode #50]((\u003ca href=\"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/50\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.incrementspodcast.com/50\u003c/a\u003e) to.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn this episode, we ask Professor Boyd to contrast and compare his two subjects, by addressing the question: What could Karl Popper have learned from Vladimir Nabokov?\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow Brian discovered Nabokov \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDid Nabokov have a philosophy?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNabokov\u0026#39;s life as a scientist \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWas Nabokov simply a writer of puzzles?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow much should author intentions matter when interpreting literature?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoyd\u0026#39;s book on the evolutionary origins of art and literature: \u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Stories-Evolution-Cognition-Fiction/dp/0674057112\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eOn the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/50\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eOur episode on the above\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Stalking-Nabokov-Brian-Boyd/dp/0231158564\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eStalking Nabokov\u003c/a\u003e, by Boyd. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoyd\u0026#39;s book on Pale Fire: \u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Nabokovs-Pale-Fire-Artistic-Discovery/dp/0691089574\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eNabokov\u0026#39;s Pale Fire: The Magic of Artistic Discovery\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.ada.auckland.ac.nz/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAdaOnline\u003c/a\u003e, annotated notes on Ada by Boyd. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e Art historian and one of Popper\u0026#39;s close friends, \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Gombrich\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eErnst Gombrich\u003c/a\u003e \n# Errata \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Burghers of Calais is by Balzac rather than Rodin \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Nabokov family fled Leningrad rather than Petrograd (as Petersburg had become during WWI). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecome a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDo you love words, or ideas? Email us one but not the other at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Brian Boyd.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Brian Boyd, the foremost expert on both Nabokov and Popper, comes on for a discussion about literature, discovery, and what Nabokov contributed to both. ","date_published":"2024-12-09T19:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/48fd44b7-2042-46b3-bd5f-0f0badb0fe75.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":58229654,"duration_in_seconds":3639}]},{"id":"24e93eab-5281-418f-bddf-9516c7c5f8d7","title":"#77 (Bonus) - AI Doom Debate (w/ Liron Shapira)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/77","content_text":"Back on Liron's Doom Debates podcast! Will we actually get around to the subject of superintelligent AI this time? Is it time to worry about the end of the world? Will Ben and Vaden emotionally recover from the devastating youtube comments from the last episode? \n\nFollow Liron on twitter (@liron) and check out the Doom Debates youtube channel and podcast.  \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nDefinitions of \"new knowledge\" \nThe reliance of deep learning on induction \nCan AIs be creative? \nThe limits of statistical prediction \nPredictions of what deep learning cannot accomplish \nCan ChatGPT write funny jokes? \nTrends versus principles \nThe psychological consequences of doomerism\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @liron\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nThe world is going to end soon, might as well get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWas Vaden's two week anti-debate bro reeducation camp successful? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Liron Shapira.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBack on Liron\u0026#39;s \u003cstrong\u003eDoom Debates\u003c/strong\u003e podcast! Will we actually get around to the subject of superintelligent AI this time? Is it time to worry about the end of the world? Will Ben and Vaden emotionally recover from the devastating youtube comments from the last episode? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFollow Liron on twitter (@liron) and check out the Doom Debates \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/@DoomDebates\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube channel\u003c/a\u003e and \u003ca href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/doom-debates/id1751366208\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epodcast\u003c/a\u003e.  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefinitions of \u0026quot;new knowledge\u0026quot; \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe reliance of deep learning on induction \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCan AIs be creative? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe limits of statistical prediction \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePredictions of what deep learning cannot accomplish \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCan ChatGPT write funny jokes? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrends versus principles \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe psychological consequences of doomerism\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @liron\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe world is going to end soon, might as well get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWas Vaden\u0026#39;s two week anti-debate bro reeducation camp successful? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Liron Shapira.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Part II of the great debate! Is AI about to kill everyone? Should you cash in on those vacation days now? ","date_published":"2024-11-19T13:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/24e93eab-5281-418f-bddf-9516c7c5f8d7.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":135967787,"duration_in_seconds":8482}]},{"id":"c2b5df9d-ecb4-43d0-9e80-a713495335d8","title":"#76 (Bonus) - Is P(doom) meaningful? Debating epistemology (w/ Liron Shapira) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/76","content_text":"Liron Shapira, host of [Doom Debates], invited us on to discuss Popperian versus Bayesian epistemology and whether we're worried about AI doom. As one might expect knowing us, we only got about halfway through the first subject, so get yourselves ready (presumably with many drinks) for part II in a few weeks! The era of Ben and Vaden's rowdy youtube debates has begun. Vaden is jubilant, Ben is uncomfortable, and the world has never been more annoyed by Popperians. \n\nFollow Liron on twitter (@liron) and check out the Doom Debates youtube channel and podcast.  \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhether we're concerned about AI doom \nBayesian reasoning versus Popperian reasoning \nWhether it makes sense to put numbers on all your beliefs \nSolomonoff induction \nObjective vs subjective Bayesianism \nPrediction markets and superforecasting \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nVaden's blog post on Cox's Theorem and Yudkowsky's claims of \"Laws of Rationality\": https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2021/the_credence_assumption/\nDisproof of probabilistic induction (including Solomonov Induction): https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00749 \nEA Post Vaden Mentioned regarding predictions being uncalibrated more than 1yr out: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hqkyaHLQhzuREcXSX/data-on-forecasting-accuracy-across-different-time-horizons#Calibrations\nArticle by Gavin Leech and Misha Yagudin on the reliability of forecasters: https://ifp.org/can-policymakers-trust-forecasters/\nSuperforecaster p(doom) is ~1%: https://80000hours.org/2024/09/why-experts-and-forecasters-disagree-about-ai-risk/#:~:text=Domain%20experts%20in%20AI%20estimated,by%202100%20(around%2090%25).\nThe existential risk persuasion tournament https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-extinction-tournament\nSome more info in Ben's article on superforecasting: https://benchugg.com/writing/superforecasting/\nSlides on Content vs Probability: https://vmasrani.github.io/assets/pdf/popper_good.pdf\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @liron\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nTrust in the reverend Bayes and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat's your credence that the second debate is as fun as the first? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com Special Guest: Liron Shapira.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eLiron Shapira, host of [Doom Debates], invited us on to discuss Popperian versus Bayesian epistemology and whether we\u0026#39;re worried about AI doom. As one might expect knowing us, we only got about halfway through the first subject, so get yourselves ready (presumably with many drinks) for part II in a few weeks! The era of Ben and Vaden\u0026#39;s rowdy youtube debates has begun. Vaden is jubilant, Ben is uncomfortable, and the world has never been more annoyed by Popperians. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFollow Liron on twitter (@liron) and check out the Doom Debates \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/@DoomDebates\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube channel\u003c/a\u003e and \u003ca href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/doom-debates/id1751366208\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epodcast\u003c/a\u003e.  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether we\u0026#39;re concerned about AI doom \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayesian reasoning versus Popperian reasoning \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether it makes sense to put numbers on all your beliefs \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSolomonoff induction \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eObjective vs subjective Bayesianism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrediction markets and superforecasting \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s blog post on Cox\u0026#39;s Theorem and Yudkowsky\u0026#39;s claims of \u0026quot;Laws of Rationality\u0026quot;: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2021/the_credence_assumption/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2021/the_credence_assumption/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDisproof of probabilistic induction (including Solomonov Induction): \u003ca href=\"https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00749\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00749\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEA Post Vaden Mentioned regarding predictions being uncalibrated more than 1yr out: \u003ca href=\"https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hqkyaHLQhzuREcXSX/data-on-forecasting-accuracy-across-different-time-horizons#Calibrations\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hqkyaHLQhzuREcXSX/data-on-forecasting-accuracy-across-different-time-horizons#Calibrations\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArticle by Gavin Leech and Misha Yagudin on the reliability of forecasters: \u003ca href=\"https://ifp.org/can-policymakers-trust-forecasters/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://ifp.org/can-policymakers-trust-forecasters/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuperforecaster p(doom) is ~1%: \u003ca href=\"https://80000hours.org/2024/09/why-experts-and-forecasters-disagree-about-ai-risk/#:%7E:text=Domain%20experts%20in%20AI%20estimated,by%202100%20(around%2090%25)\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://80000hours.org/2024/09/why-experts-and-forecasters-disagree-about-ai-risk/#:~:text=Domain%20experts%20in%20AI%20estimated,by%202100%20(around%2090%25)\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe existential risk persuasion tournament \u003ca href=\"https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-extinction-tournament\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-extinction-tournament\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSome more info in Ben\u0026#39;s article on superforecasting: \u003ca href=\"https://benchugg.com/writing/superforecasting/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://benchugg.com/writing/superforecasting/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSlides on Content vs Probability: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/assets/pdf/popper_good.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://vmasrani.github.io/assets/pdf/popper_good.pdf\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @liron\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrust in the reverend Bayes and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat\u0026#39;s your credence that the second debate is as fun as the first? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Liron Shapira.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We were invited onto Liron Shapira's \"Doom debates\" to discuss Bayesian versus Popperian epistemology, AI doom, and superintelligence. Unsurprisingly, we got about one third of the way through the first subject ... ","date_published":"2024-11-08T14:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/c2b5df9d-ecb4-43d0-9e80-a713495335d8.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":98186842,"duration_in_seconds":10258}]},{"id":"620c85f4-0377-4a5a-ba7e-71006bcb89b4","title":"#75 -  The Problem of Induction, Relitigated (w/ Tamler Sommers)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/75","content_text":"When Very Bad Wizards meets Very Culty Popperians.  We finally decided to have a real life professional philosopher on the pod to call us out on our nonsense,  and are honored to have on Tamler Sommers, from the esteemed Very Bad Wizards podcast, to argue with us about the Problem of Induction. Did Popper solve it, or does his proposed solution, like all the other attempts, \"fail decisively\"? \n\n(Warning: One of the two hosts maaay have revealed their Popperian dogmatism a bit throughout this episode. Whichever host that is - they shall remain unnamed - apologizes quietly and stubbornly under their breath.) \n\nCheck out Tamler's website, his podcast (Very Bad Wizards), or follow him on twitter (@tamler). \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhat is the problem of induction? \nWhether regularities really exist in nature\nThe difference between certainty and justification \nPopper's solution to the problem of induction \nIf whiskey will taste like orange juice next week\nWhat makes a good theory?\nWhy prediction is secondary to explanation for Popper \nIf science and meditiation are in conflict \nThe boundaries of science\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nVery Bad Wizards episode on induction\nThe problem of induction, by Wesley Salmon\nHume on induction\n\n\nErrata\n\n\nVaden mentions in the episode how \"Einstein's theory is better because it can explain earth's gravitational constant\". He got some of the details wrong here - it's actually the inverse square law, not the gravitational constant. Listen to Edward Witten explain it much better here. \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @tamler\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nTrust in our regularity and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nIf you are a Very Bad Wizards listener, hello! We're exactly like Tamler and David, except younger. Come join the Cult of Popper over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com \n\nImage credit: From this Aeon essay on Hume. Illustration by Petra Eriksson at Handsome Frank. Special Guest: Tamler Sommers.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWhen Very Bad Wizards meets Very Culty Popperians.  We finally decided to have a real life professional philosopher on the pod to call us out on our nonsense,  and are honored to have on Tamler Sommers, from the esteemed Very Bad Wizards podcast, to argue with us about the Problem of Induction. Did Popper solve it, or does his proposed solution, like all the other attempts, \u0026quot;fail decisively\u0026quot;? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e(Warning: One of the two hosts maaay have revealed their Popperian dogmatism a bit throughout this episode. Whichever host that is - they shall remain unnamed - apologizes quietly and stubbornly under their breath.) \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eCheck out \u003ca href=\"https://www.tamlersommers.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eTamler\u0026#39;s website\u003c/a\u003e, his podcast (\u003ca href=\"https://verybadwizards.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eVery Bad Wizards\u003c/a\u003e), or follow him on twitter (@tamler). \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat is the problem of induction? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether regularities really exist in nature\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe difference between certainty and justification \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopper\u0026#39;s solution to the problem of induction \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIf whiskey will taste like orange juice next week\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat makes a good theory?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy prediction is secondary to explanation for Popper \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIf science and meditiation are in conflict \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe boundaries of science\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://verybadwizards.com/episode/episode-294-the-scandal-of-philosophy-humes-problem-of-induction\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eVery Bad Wizards episode on induction\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://home.csulb.edu/%7Ecwallis/100/articles/salmon.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe problem of induction, by Wesley Salmon\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/#HumeProb\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eHume on induction\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eErrata\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden mentions in the episode how \u0026quot;Einstein\u0026#39;s theory is better because it can explain earth\u0026#39;s gravitational constant\u0026quot;. He got some of the details wrong here - it\u0026#39;s actually the inverse square law, not the gravitational constant. Listen to Edward Witten explain it much better \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_9RqsHYEAs\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @tamler\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrust in our regularity and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIf you are a Very Bad Wizards listener, hello! We\u0026#39;re exactly like Tamler and David, except younger. Come join the Cult of Popper over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eImage credit: From this \u003ca href=\"https://aeon.co/essays/hume-is-the-amiable-modest-generous-philosopher-we-need-today\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAeon essay on Hume\u003c/a\u003e. Illustration by Petra Eriksson at Handsome Frank. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Tamler Sommers.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"When Very Bad Wizards meets Very Culty Popperians. Famed philosopher, podcaster, and Kant-hater Tamler Sommers joins the boys for a spirited disagreement over Popper, and whether he solved the Problem of Induction. ","date_published":"2024-10-23T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/620c85f4-0377-4a5a-ba7e-71006bcb89b4.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":97763365,"duration_in_seconds":6073}]},{"id":"03508f9b-3a2a-4b15-9b23-fe30083b431b","title":"#74 - Disagreeing about Belief, Probability, and Truth (w/ David Deutsch)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/74","content_text":"What do you do when one of your intellectual idols comes on the podcast? Bombard them with disagreements of course. We were thrilled to have David Deutsch on the podcast to discuss whether the concept of belief is a useful lens on human cognition, when probability and statistics should be deployed, and whether he disagrees with Karl Popper on abstractions, the truth, and nothing but the truth. \n\nFollow David on Twitter (@DavidDeutschOxf) or find his website here. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhether belief is a fruitful lens through which to analyze ideas \nWhether a non-quantitative form of belief can be defended \nHow does belief bottom out epistemologically? \nWhether statistics and probability are useful \nWhere should statistics and probability be used in practice? \nThe Popper-Miller theorem\nStatements vs propositions and their relevance for truth \nWhether Popper and Deutsch disagree about truth \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nThe Popper-Miller theorem. See the original paper \nDavid's 2021 talk on the correspondence theory of truth \nDavid's talk on physics without probability. \nHempel's paradox \nThe Beginning of Infinity\nKnowledge and the Body-Mind Problem\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @DavidDeutschOxf\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nBelieve in us and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat's the truth about your belief on the probability of useful statistics? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: David Deutsch.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWhat do you do when one of your intellectual idols comes on the podcast? Bombard them with disagreements of course. We were thrilled to have David Deutsch on the podcast to discuss whether the concept of belief is a useful lens on human cognition, when probability and statistics should be deployed, and whether he disagrees with Karl Popper on abstractions, the truth, and nothing but the truth. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFollow David on Twitter (@DavidDeutschOxf) or find his website \u003ca href=\"https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether belief is a fruitful lens through which to analyze ideas \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether a non-quantitative form of belief can be defended \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow does belief bottom out epistemologically? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether statistics and probability are useful \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhere should statistics and probability be used in practice? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Popper-Miller theorem\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStatements vs propositions and their relevance for truth \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether Popper and Deutsch disagree about truth \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Popper-Miller theorem. See the \u003ca href=\"https://www.nature.com/articles/302687a0\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eoriginal paper\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid\u0026#39;s 2021 talk on the \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-opI-jghs\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ecorrespondence theory of truth\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid\u0026#39;s talk on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ephysics without probability\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eHempel\u0026#39;s paradox\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Infinity-Explanations-Transform-World/dp/0143121359\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Beginning of Infinity\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Knowledge-Body-Mind-Problem-Defence-Interaction/dp/0415135567\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eKnowledge and the Body-Mind Problem\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @DavidDeutschOxf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelieve in us and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat\u0026#39;s the truth about your belief on the probability of useful statistics? Tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: David Deutsch.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We talk with David Deutsch about whether the concept of belief is a useful lens on human cognition, when probability and statistics are actually useful, and whether he disagrees with Karl Popper about the truth. ","date_published":"2024-10-01T09:30:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/03508f9b-3a2a-4b15-9b23-fe30083b431b.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":88829366,"duration_in_seconds":5522}]},{"id":"59392c21-f036-4a27-b067-42725172ee33","title":"#73 - The Unfairness of Proportional Representation","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/73","content_text":"Want to make everyone under 30 extremely angry? Tell them you don't like proportional representation. Tell them proportional representation sucks, just like recycling. In this episode, we continue to improve your popularity at parties by diving into Sir Karl's theory of democracy, and his arguments for why the first-past-the-post electoral system is superior to proportional representation systems. And if you find anyone left at the party who still wants to talk to you, we also cover Chapter 13 of Beginning of Infinity, where Deutsch  builds upon Popper's theory. And always remember, \n\nFirst-Past-The-Post: If it's good enough for the horses, it's good enough for us.  \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhy democracy should be about the removal of bad leaders \nHow Popper's conception of democracy differs from the usual conception\nWhy Popper supports first-past-the-post (FPP) over proportional representation (PR) \nHow PR encourages backroom dealing and magnifies the influence of unpopular leaders\nThe sensitivity of FPP to changes to popular will \nHow FPP makes it easier to obtain majorities \nHow majorities make it easier to trace the consequences of policies \nDeutsch and his criticism of compromise-policies. \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nPopper on democracy (economist piece). \nVaden's blog post \nChapter 13: Choices of The Beginning of Infinity\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us form a majority and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat's the first post you past? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWant to make everyone under 30 extremely angry? Tell them you don\u0026#39;t like proportional representation. Tell them proportional representation sucks, just like \u003ca href=\"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/63\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003erecycling\u003c/a\u003e. In this episode, we continue to improve your popularity at parties by diving into Sir Karl\u0026#39;s theory of democracy, and his arguments for why the first-past-the-post electoral system is superior to proportional representation systems. And if you find anyone left at the party who still wants to talk to you, we also cover Chapter 13 of \u003cem\u003eBeginning of Infinity\u003c/em\u003e, where Deutsch  builds upon Popper\u0026#39;s theory. And always remember, \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFirst-Past-The-Post: If it\u0026#39;s good enough for the horses, it\u0026#39;s good enough for us.\u003c/em\u003e  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy democracy should be about the removal of bad leaders \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow Popper\u0026#39;s conception of democracy differs from the usual conception\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy Popper supports first-past-the-post (FPP) over proportional representation (PR) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow PR encourages backroom dealing and magnifies the influence of unpopular leaders\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe sensitivity of FPP to changes to popular will \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow FPP makes it easier to obtain majorities \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow majorities make it easier to trace the consequences of policies \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeutsch and his criticism of compromise-policies. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ePopper on democracy\u003c/a\u003e (economist piece). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2018/prop_rep/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s blog post\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChapter 13: Choices of \u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Infinity-Explanations-Transform-World/dp/0143121359\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Beginning of Infinity\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us form a majority and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat\u0026#39;s the first post you past? Tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We discuss Karl Popper's theory of democracy, and why the first-past-the-post voting system is better than proportional representation. ","date_published":"2024-09-13T03:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/59392c21-f036-4a27-b067-42725172ee33.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":81796283,"duration_in_seconds":5112}]},{"id":"edd648da-953e-406e-a19b-6add8f94472f","title":"#72 (C\u0026R, Chap. 19: Part II) - On the (alleged) Right of a Nation to Self-Determination ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/72","content_text":"Part two on Chapter 19 of Conjectures and Refutations! Last time we got a little hung up arguing about human behavior and motivations. Putting that disagreement aside, like mature adults, we move on to the rest of the chapter and Popper's remaining theses. In particular, we focus on Popper's criticism of the idea of a nation's right to self-determination. Things were going smoothly ... until roughly five minutes in, when we start disagreeing about what the \"nation\" in \"nation state\" actually means. \n\n(Note: Early listeners of this episode have commented that this one is a bit hard to follow - highly suggest reading the text to compensate for our many confusing digressions. Our bad, our bad). \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nAre there any benefits of being bilingual? \nPopper's attack on the idea of national self-determination \nPopper's second thesis: that out own free world is by far the best society thus far \nReductions in poverty, unemployment, sickness, pain, cruelty, slavery, discrimination, class differences\nPopper's third thesis: The relation of progress to war\nWhether Popper was factually correct about his claim that democracies do not wage wars of aggression\nSelf-accusation: A unique feature to Western societies \nPopper's fourth thesis about the power of ideas \nAnd his fifth thesis that truth is hard to come by\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nConjectures and Refutations\nDefinition of self-determination from Cornell Law School \nThe UN Charter \nWilson's 14 Points\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nThe absurdity of the communist faith is manifest. Appealing to the belief in human freedom, it has produced a system of oppression without parallel in history.\n\nBut the nationalist faith is equally absurd. I am not alluding here to Hitler’s racial myth. What I have in mind is, rather, an alleged natural right of man— the alleged right of a nation to self-determination. That even a great humanitarian and liberal like Masaryk could uphold this absurd- ity as one of the natural rights of man is a sobering thought. It suffices to shake one’s faith in the wisdom of philosopher kings, and it should be contemplated by all who think that we are clever but wicked rather than good but stupid. For the utter absurdity of the principle of national self-determination must be plain to anybody who devotes a moment’s effort to criticizing it. The principle amounts to the demand that each state should be a nation-state: that it should be confined within a natural border, and that this border should coincide with the location of an ethnic group; so that it should be the ethnic group, the ‘nation’, which should determine and protect the natural limits of the state.\n\nBut nation-states of this kind do not exist. Even Iceland—the only exception I can think of—is only an apparent exception to this rule. For its limits are determined, not by its ethnic group, but by the North Atlantic—just as they are protected, not by the Icelandic nation, but by the North Atlantic Treaty. Nation-states do not exist, simply because the so-called ‘nations’ or ‘peoples’ of which the nationalists dream do not exist. There are no, or hardly any, homogenous ethnic groups long settled in countries with natural borders. Ethnic and linguistic groups (dialects often amount to linguistic barriers) are closely intermingled everywhere. Masaryk’s Czechoslovakia was founded upon the principle of national self-determination. But as soon as it was founded, the Slovaks demanded, in the name of this principle, to be free from Czech domination; and ultimately it was destroyed by its German minority, in the name of the same principle. Similar situations have arisen in practically every case in which the principle of national self- determination has been applied to fixing the borders of a new state: in Ireland, in India, in Israel, in Yugoslavia. \n\nThere are ethnic minorities everywhere. The proper aim cannot be to ‘liberate’ all of them; rather, it must be to protect all of them. The oppression of national groups is a great evil; but national self-determination is not a feasible remedy. Moreover, Britain, the United States, Canada, and Switzerland, are four obvious examples of states which in many ways violate the nationality principle. Instead of having its borders determined by one settled group, each of them has man- aged to unite a variety of ethnic groups. So the problem does not seem insoluble.\n\n\nC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\n\n\nHow anybody who had the slightest knowledge of European history, of the shifting and mixing of all kinds of tribes, of the countless waves of peoples who had come forth from their original Asian habitat and split up and mingled when reaching the maze of peninsulas called the European continent, how anybody who knew this could ever have put forward such an inapplicable principle, is hard to understand. \n\n\nOpen Society, Page 355\n\n\nThe nationalist religion is strong. Many are ready to die for it, fer- vently believing that it is morally good, and factually true. But they are mistaken; just as mistaken as their communist bedfellows. Few creeds have created more hatred, cruelty, and senseless suffering than the belief in the righteousness of the nationality principle; and yet it is still widely believed that this principle will help to alleviate the misery of national oppression. My optimism is a little shaken, I admit, when I look at the near-unanimity with which this principle is still accepted, even today, without any hesitation, without any doubt—even by those whose political interests are clearly opposed to it. \n\n\nC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\n\n\nIn spite of our great and serious troubles, and in spite of the fact that ours is surely not the best possible society, I assert that our own free world is by far the best society which has come into existence during the course of human history.\n\n\nC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\n\n\nBut before examining these facts more closely, I wish to stress that I am very much alive to other facts also. Power still corrupts, even in our world. Civil servants still behave at times like uncivil masters. Pocket dictators still abound; and a normally intelligent man seeking medical advice must be prepared to be treated as a rather tiresome type of imbecile, if he betrays an intelligent interest—that is, a critical interest—in his physical condition.\n\n\nC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\n\n\nI have in mind the standards and values which have come down to us through Christianity from Greece and from the Holy Land; from Socrates, and from the Old and New Testaments.\n\n\nC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\n\n\nMy third thesis is that since the time of the Boer War, none of the democratic governments of the free world has been in a position to wage a war of aggression. No democratic government would be united upon the issue, because they would not have the nation united behind them. Aggressive war has become almost a moral impossibility.\n\n\nC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\n\n\nI believe that it is most important to say what the free world has achieved. For we have become unduly sceptical about ourselves. We are suspicious of anything like self-righteousness, and we find self-praise unpalatable. One of the great things we have learned is not only to be tolerant of others, but to ask ourselves seriously whether the other fellow is not perhaps in the right, and altogether the better man. We have learned the fundamental moral truth that nobody should be judge in his own cause. This, no doubt, is a symptom of a certain moral maturity; yet one may learn a lesson too well. Having discovered the sin of self-righteousness, we have fallen into its stereotyped inversion: into a stereotyped pose of self-depreciation, of inverted smugness. Having learned that one should not be judge in one’s own cause, we are tempted to become advocates for our opponents. Thus we become blind to our own achievements. But this tendency must be resisted.\n\n\nC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\n\n\nThus we learnt not only to tolerate beliefs that differ from ours, but to respect them and the men who sincerely held them. But this means that we slowly began to differentiate between sincerity and dogmatic stub- bornness or laziness, and to recognize the great truth that truth is not manifest, not plainly visible to all who ardently want to see it, but hard to come by. And we learnt that we must not draw authoritarian conclu- sions from this great truth but, on the contrary, suspect all those who claim that they are authorized to teach the truth.\n\n\nC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\n# Socials \nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us revoke the UN charter and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\n\nForm a nation and liberate yo' selves over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003ePart two on Chapter 19 of Conjectures and Refutations! Last time we got a little hung up arguing about human behavior and motivations. Putting that disagreement aside, like mature adults, we move on to the rest of the chapter and Popper\u0026#39;s remaining theses. In particular, we focus on Popper\u0026#39;s criticism of the idea of a nation\u0026#39;s right to self-determination. Things were going smoothly ... until roughly five minutes in, when we start disagreeing about what the \u0026quot;nation\u0026quot; in \u0026quot;nation state\u0026quot; actually means. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e(Note: Early listeners of this episode have commented that this one is a bit hard to follow - highly suggest reading the text to compensate for our many confusing digressions. Our bad, our bad). \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAre there any benefits of being bilingual? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopper\u0026#39;s attack on the idea of national self-determination \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopper\u0026#39;s second thesis: that out own free world is by far the best society thus far \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReductions in poverty, unemployment, sickness, pain, cruelty, slavery, discrimination, class differences\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopper\u0026#39;s third thesis: The relation of progress to war\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether Popper was factually correct about his claim that democracies do not wage wars of aggression\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSelf-accusation: A unique feature to Western societies \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopper\u0026#39;s fourth thesis about the power of ideas \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnd his fifth thesis that truth is hard to come by\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.routledge.com/Conjectures-and-Refutations-The-Growth-of-Scientific-Knowledge/Popper/p/book/9780415285940?srsltid=AfmBOorkyc4_sllmg2YLqfQ3jYz1HpLtAEUJODspqZ-3adzKrPaQlj9D\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eConjectures and Refutations\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law)\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDefinition of self-determination from Cornell Law School\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe UN Charter\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-woodrow-wilsons-14-points\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eWilson\u0026#39;s 14 Points\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe absurdity of the communist faith is manifest. Appealing to the belief in human freedom, it has produced a system of oppression without parallel in history.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBut the nationalist faith is equally absurd. I am not alluding here to Hitler’s racial myth. What I have in mind is, rather, an alleged natural right of man— \u003cem\u003ethe alleged right of a nation to self-determination.\u003c/em\u003e That even a great humanitarian and liberal like Masaryk could uphold this absurd- ity as one of the natural rights of man is a sobering thought. It suffices to shake one’s faith in the wisdom of philosopher kings, and it should be contemplated by all who think that we are clever but wicked rather than good but stupid. For the utter absurdity of the principle of national self-determination must be plain to anybody who devotes a moment’s effort to criticizing it. The principle amounts to the demand that each state should be a nation-state: that it should be confined within a natural border, and that this border should coincide with the location of an ethnic group; so that it should be the ethnic group, the ‘nation’, which should determine and protect the natural limits of the state.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBut nation-states of this kind do not exist. Even Iceland—the only exception I can think of—is only an apparent exception to this rule. For its limits are determined, not by its ethnic group, but by the North Atlantic—just as they are protected, not by the Icelandic nation, but by the North Atlantic Treaty. Nation-states do not exist, simply because the so-called ‘nations’ or ‘peoples’ of which the nationalists dream do not exist. There are no, or hardly any, homogenous ethnic groups long settled in countries with natural borders. Ethnic and linguistic groups (dialects often amount to linguistic barriers) are closely intermingled everywhere. Masaryk’s Czechoslovakia was founded upon the principle of national self-determination. But as soon as it was founded, the Slovaks demanded, in the name of this principle, to be free from Czech domination; and ultimately it was destroyed by its German minority, in the name of the same principle. Similar situations have arisen in practically every case in which the principle of national self- determination has been applied to fixing the borders of a new state: in Ireland, in India, in Israel, in Yugoslavia. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere are ethnic minorities everywhere. The proper aim cannot be to ‘liberate’ all of them; rather, it must be to protect all of them. \u003cem\u003eThe oppression of national groups is a great evil; but national self-determination is not a feasible remedy.\u003c/em\u003e Moreover, Britain, the United States, Canada, and Switzerland, are four obvious examples of states which in many ways violate the nationality principle. Instead of having its borders determined by one settled group, each of them has man- aged to unite a variety of ethnic groups. So the problem does not seem insoluble.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHow anybody who had the slightest knowledge of European history, of the shifting and mixing of all kinds of tribes, of the countless waves of peoples who had come forth from their original Asian habitat and split up and mingled when reaching the maze of peninsulas called the European continent, how anybody who knew this could ever have put forward such an inapplicable principle, is hard to understand. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpen Society, Page 355\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe nationalist religion is strong. Many are ready to die for it, fer- vently believing that it is morally good, and factually true. But they are mistaken; just as mistaken as their communist bedfellows. Few creeds have created more hatred, cruelty, and senseless suffering than the belief in the righteousness of the nationality principle; and yet it is still widely believed that this principle will help to alleviate the misery of national oppression. My optimism is a little shaken, I admit, when I look at the near-unanimity with which this principle is still accepted, even today, without any hesitation, without any doubt—even by those whose political interests are clearly opposed to it. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn spite of our great and serious troubles, and in spite of the fact that ours is surely not the best possible society, I assert that our own free world is by far the best society which has come into existence during the course of human history.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBut before examining these facts more closely, I wish to stress that I am very much alive to other facts also. Power still corrupts, even in our world. Civil servants still behave at times like uncivil masters. Pocket dictators still abound; and a normally intelligent man seeking medical advice must be prepared to be treated as a rather tiresome type of imbecile, if he betrays an intelligent interest—that is, a critical interest—in his physical condition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eI have in mind the standards and values which have come down to us through Christianity from Greece and from the Holy Land; from Socrates, and from the Old and New Testaments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eMy third thesis is that since the time of the Boer War, none of the democratic governments of the free world has been in a position to wage a war of aggression. No democratic government would be united upon the issue, because they would not have the nation united behind them. Aggressive war has become almost a moral impossibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eI believe that it is most important to say what the free world has achieved. For we have become unduly sceptical about ourselves. We are suspicious of anything like self-righteousness, and we find self-praise unpalatable. One of the great things we have learned is not only to be tolerant of others, but to ask ourselves seriously whether the other fellow is not perhaps in the right, and altogether the better man. We have learned the fundamental moral truth that nobody should be judge in his own cause. This, no doubt, is a symptom of a certain moral maturity; yet one may learn a lesson too well. Having discovered the sin of self-righteousness, we have fallen into its stereotyped inversion: into a stereotyped pose of self-depreciation, of inverted smugness. Having learned that one should not be judge in one’s own cause, we are tempted to become advocates for our opponents. Thus we become blind to our own achievements. But this tendency must be resisted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThus we learnt not only to tolerate beliefs that differ from ours, but to respect them and the men who sincerely held them. But this means that we slowly began to differentiate between sincerity and dogmatic stub- bornness or laziness, and to recognize the great truth that truth is not manifest, not plainly visible to all who ardently want to see it, but hard to come by. And we learnt that we must not draw authoritarian conclu- sions from this great truth but, on the contrary, suspect all those who claim that they are authorized to teach the truth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eC\u0026amp;R, Chapter 19\u003c/em\u003e\n# Socials \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us revoke the UN charter and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eForm a nation and liberate yo\u0026#39; selves over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Second half of Chapter 19 of Conjectures and Refutations. Can we make it through more than one of Popper's five theses this time? (Hint: No, no we cannot)","date_published":"2024-08-27T00:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/edd648da-953e-406e-a19b-6add8f94472f.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":49248129,"duration_in_seconds":3078}]},{"id":"eda08576-805e-4562-9fb1-85a112238232","title":"#71 (C\u0026R, Chap 19: Part I) - The History of Our Time: An Optimist's View","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/71","content_text":"Back to the Conjectures and Refutations series, after a long hiatus! Given all that's happening in the world and the associated rampant pessimism, we thought it would be appropriate to tackle Chapter 19 - A History of Our Time: An Optimist's View. We get through a solid fifth of the chapter, at which point Ben and Vaden start arguing about whether people are fundamentally good, fundamentally bad, or fundamentally driven by signalling and incentives. And we finally answer the all-important question on everyone's mind: Does Adolf Eichmann support defunding the police? Banal Lives Matter. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nThoughts on the recent Trump assasination attempt \nHow can Popper be an optimist with prophesying about the future? \nThe scarcity value of optimism \nRussell's view that our intellectual development has outrun our moral development\nRelationship of this view to the orthogonality thesis \nPopper's competing view that our troubles arise because we are good but stupid \nHow much can incentives compel us to do bad things? \nHow easy it for humans to really be led by the nose\nBen's experience during the summer of 2020 \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nConjectures and Refutations\nOrthogonality thesis\nEichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt\nAdam Smith's thought experiment about losing a pinky\nRadiolab episode, \"The Bad Show\"\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nNow I come to the word ‘Optimist’. First let me make it quite clear that if I call myself an optimist, I do not wish to suggest that I know anything about the future. I do not wish to pose as a prophet, least of all as a historical prophet. On the contrary, I have for many years tried to defend the view that historical prophecy is a kind of quackery.  I do not believe in historical laws, and I disbelieve especially in anything like a law of progress. In fact, I believe that it is much easier for us to regress than to progress.\n\nThough I believe all this, I think that I may fairly describe myself as an optimist. For my optimism lies entirely in my interpretation of the present and the immediate past. It lies in my strongly appreciative view of our own time. And whatever you might think about this optimism you will have to admit that it has a scarcity value. In fact the wailings of the pessimists have become somewhat monotonous. No doubt there is much in our world about which we can rightly complain if only we give our mind to it; and no doubt it is sometimes most important to find out what is wrong with us. But I think that the other side of the story might also get a hearing.\n\nAnd whatever you might think about this optimism you will have to admit that it has a scarcity value. In fact the wailings of the pessimists have become somewhat monotonous. No doubt there is much in our world about which we can rightly complain if only we give our mind to it; and no doubt it is sometimes most important to find out what is wrong with us. But I think that the other side of the story might also get a hearing.\n\nWe have become very clever, according to Russell, indeed too clever. We can make lots of wonderful gadgets, including television, high-speed rockets, and an atom bomb, or a thermonuclear bomb, if you prefer. But we have not been able to achieve that moral and political growth and maturity which alone could safely direct and control the uses to which we put our tremendous intellectual powers. This is why we now find ourselves in mortal danger. Our evil national pride has prevented us from achieving the world-state in time.To put this view in a nutshell: we are clever, perhaps too clever, but we are also wicked; and this mixture of cleverness and wickedness lies at the root of our troubles.\n\nMy first thesis is this. We are good, perhaps a little too good, but we are also a little stupid; and it is this mixture of goodness and stupidity which lies at the root of our troubles.\n\nThe main troubles of our time—and I do not deny that we live in troubled times—are not due to our moral wickedness, but, on the contrary, to our often misguided moral enthusiasm: to our anxiety to better the world we live in. Our wars are fundamentally religious wars; they are wars between competing theories of how to establish a better world. And our moral enthusiasm is often misguided, because we fail to realize that our moral principles, which are sure to be over-simple, are often difficult to apply to the complex human and political situations to which we feel bound to apply them.\n\n\n(All Popper) \n\n\n“The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.” \n- EO Wilson \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat do Benny Chugg and Adolf Eichmann have in common? I mean, what don't they have in common? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBack to the Conjectures and Refutations series, after a long hiatus! Given all that\u0026#39;s happening in the world and the associated rampant pessimism, we thought it would be appropriate to tackle \u003cem\u003eChapter 19 - A History of Our Time: An Optimist\u0026#39;s View\u003c/em\u003e. We get through a solid fifth of the chapter, at which point Ben and Vaden start arguing about whether people are fundamentally good, fundamentally bad, or fundamentally driven by signalling and incentives. And we finally answer the all-important question on everyone\u0026#39;s mind: Does Adolf Eichmann support defunding the police? Banal Lives Matter. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThoughts on the recent Trump assasination attempt \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow can Popper be an optimist with prophesying about the future? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe scarcity value of optimism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRussell\u0026#39;s view that our intellectual development has outrun our moral development\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRelationship of this view to the orthogonality thesis \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopper\u0026#39;s competing view that our troubles arise because we are good but stupid \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow much can incentives compel us to do bad things? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow easy it for humans to really be led by the nose\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026#39;s experience during the summer of 2020 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eConjectures and Refutations\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/orthogonality-thesis\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eOrthogonality thesis\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Eichmann-Jerusalem-Banality-Penguin-Classics/dp/0143039881\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEichmann in Jerusalem\u003c/a\u003e by Hannah Arendt\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.adamsmithworks.org/speakings/moral-sentiments-active-and-passive\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAdam Smith\u0026#39;s thought experiment about losing a pinky\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://radiolab.org/podcast/180092-the-bad-show\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eRadiolab episode, \u0026quot;The Bad Show\u0026quot;\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNow I come to the word ‘Optimist’. First let me make it quite clear that if I call myself an optimist, I do not wish to suggest that I know anything about the future. I do not wish to pose as a prophet, least of all as a historical prophet. On the contrary, I have for many years tried to defend the view that historical prophecy is a kind of quackery.  I do not believe in historical laws, and I disbelieve especially in anything like a law of progress. In fact, I believe that it is much easier for us to regress than to progress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThough I believe all this, I think that I may fairly describe myself as an optimist. For my optimism lies entirely in my interpretation of the present and the immediate past. It lies in my strongly appreciative view of our own time. And whatever you might think about this optimism you will have to admit that it has a scarcity value. In fact the wailings of the pessimists have become somewhat monotonous. No doubt there is much in our world about which we can rightly complain if only we give our mind to it; and no doubt it is sometimes most important to find out what is wrong with us. But I think that the other side of the story might also get a hearing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAnd whatever you might think about this optimism you will have to admit that it has a scarcity value. In fact the wailings of the pessimists have become somewhat monotonous. No doubt there is much in our world about which we can rightly complain if only we give our mind to it; and no doubt it is sometimes most important to find out what is wrong with us. But I think that the other side of the story might also get a hearing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe have become very clever, according to Russell, indeed too clever. We can make lots of wonderful gadgets, including television, high-speed rockets, and an atom bomb, or a thermonuclear bomb, if you prefer. But we have not been able to achieve that moral and political growth and maturity which alone could safely direct and control the uses to which we put our tremendous intellectual powers. This is why we now find ourselves in mortal danger. Our evil national pride has prevented us from achieving the world-state in time.To put this view in a nutshell: we are clever, perhaps too clever, but we are also wicked; and this mixture of cleverness and wickedness lies at the root of our troubles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eMy first thesis is this. We are good, perhaps a little too good, but we are also a little stupid; and it is this mixture of goodness and stupidity which lies at the root of our troubles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe main troubles of our time—and I do not deny that we live in troubled times—are not due to our moral wickedness, but, on the contrary, to our often misguided moral enthusiasm: to our anxiety to better the world we live in. Our wars are fundamentally religious wars; they are wars between competing theories of how to establish a better world. And our moral enthusiasm is often misguided, because we fail to realize that our moral principles, which are sure to be over-simple, are often difficult to apply to the complex human and political situations to which we feel bound to apply them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e(All Popper) \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.” \u003cbr\u003e\n- EO Wilson \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat do Benny Chugg and Adolf Eichmann have in common? I mean, what \u003cem\u003edon\u0026#39;t\u003c/em\u003e they have in common? Tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"A dive into Chapter 19 of Conjectures and Refutations, resulting in an hour long argument between Ben and Vaden about whether people are good, bad, or you know, just signaling. ","date_published":"2024-08-02T11:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/eda08576-805e-4562-9fb1-85a112238232.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":69932929,"duration_in_seconds":4370}]},{"id":"a9b0b76a-e2e7-449c-8318-06efecf1c13d","title":"#70 - ... and Bayes Bites Back (w/ Richard Meadows) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/70","content_text":"Sick of hearing us shouting about Bayesianism? Well today you're in luck, because this time, someone shouts at us about Bayesianism! Richard Meadows, finance journalist, author, and Ben's secretive podcast paramour, takes us to task. Are we being unfair to the Bayesians? Is Bayesian rationality optimal in theory, and the rest of us are just coping with an uncertain world? Is this why the Bayesian rationalists have so much cultural influence (and money, and fame, and media attention, and ...), and we, ahem, uhhh, don't?  \n\nCheck out Rich's website, his book Optionality: How to Survive and Thrive in a Volatile World, and his podcast. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nThe pros of the rationality and EA communities \nWhether Bayesian epistemology contributes to open-mindedness\nThe fact that evidence doesn't speak for itself \nThe fact that the world doesn't come bundled as discrete chunks of evidence \nWhether Bayesian epistemology would be \"optimal\" for Laplace's demon \nThe difference between truth and certainty\nVaden's tone issues and why he gets animated about this subject. \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nScott's original piece: In continued defense of non-frequentist probabilities\nScott Alexander's post about rootclaim \nOur previous episode on Scott's piece: #69 - Contra Scott Alexander on Probability \nRootclaim\nBen's blogpost You need a theory for that theory \nCox's theorem \nAumann's agreement theorem \nVaden's blogposts mentioned in the episode:\n\n\nCritical Rationalism and Bayesian Epistemology\nProving Too Much\n\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nFollow Rich at @MeadowsRichard\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat's your favorite theory that is neither true nor useful? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Richard Meadows.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eSick of hearing us shouting about Bayesianism? Well today you\u0026#39;re in luck, because this time, someone shouts at \u003cem\u003eus\u003c/em\u003e about Bayesianism! Richard Meadows, finance journalist, author, and Ben\u0026#39;s secretive podcast paramour, takes us to task. Are we being unfair to the Bayesians? Is Bayesian rationality optimal in theory, and the rest of us are just coping with an uncertain world? Is this why the Bayesian rationalists have so much cultural influence (and money, and fame, and media attention, and ...), and we, ahem, uhhh, don\u0026#39;t?  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eCheck out Rich\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://thedeepdish.org/start\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ewebsite\u003c/a\u003e, his book \u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Optionality-Survive-Thrive-Volatile-World/dp/0473545500\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOptionality:\u003c/strong\u003e How to Survive and Thrive in a Volatile World\u003c/a\u003e, and his \u003ca href=\"https://doyouevenlit.podbean.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epodcast\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe pros of the rationality and EA communities \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether Bayesian epistemology contributes to open-mindedness\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe fact that evidence doesn\u0026#39;t speak for itself \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe fact that the world doesn\u0026#39;t come bundled as discrete chunks of evidence \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether Bayesian epistemology would be \u0026quot;optimal\u0026quot; for Laplace\u0026#39;s demon \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe difference between truth and certainty\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s tone issues and why he gets animated about this subject. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott\u0026#39;s original piece: \u003ca href=\"https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-non-frequentist\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIn continued defense of non-frequentist probabilities\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott Alexander\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim/comments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epost about rootclaim\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOur previous episode on Scott\u0026#39;s piece: \u003ca href=\"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/69\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e#69 - Contra Scott Alexander on Probability\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.rootclaim.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eRootclaim\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026#39;s blogpost \u003ca href=\"https://benchugg.com/writing/you-need-a-theory/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eYou need a theory for that theory\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_theorem\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCox\u0026#39;s theorem\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAumann\u0026#39;s agreement theorem\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s blogposts mentioned in the episode:\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2020/vaden_second_response/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCritical Rationalism and Bayesian Epistemology\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2021/proving_too_much/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eProving Too Much\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow Rich at @MeadowsRichard\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat\u0026#39;s your favorite theory that is neither true nor useful? Tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Richard Meadows.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Rich comes on to defend Scott Alexander against our criticisms. Are we being unfair? Are the Bayesians simply the Most Rational People (MRP) and we can't handle it? ","date_published":"2024-07-09T10:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/a9b0b76a-e2e7-449c-8318-06efecf1c13d.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":88343037,"duration_in_seconds":5434}]},{"id":"3ac225c1-a486-428e-bdcf-2d1973d2c80b","title":"#69 - Contra Scott Alexander on Probability","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/69","content_text":"After four episodes spent fawning over Scott Alexander's \"Non-libertarian FAQ\", we turn around and attack the good man instead. In this episode we respond to Scott's piece \"In Continued Defense of Non-Frequentist Probabilities\", and respond to each of his five arguments defending Bayesian probability. Like moths to a flame, we apparently cannot let the probability subject slide, sorry people. But the good news is that before getting there, you get to here about some therapists and pedophiles (therapeutic pedophelia?). What's the probability that Scott changes his mind based on this episode?\n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhy we're not defending frequentism as a philosophy \nThe Bayesian interpretation of probability \nThe importance of being explicit about assumptions \nWhy it's insane to think that 50% should mean both \"equally likely\" and \"I have no effing idea\". \nWhy Scott's interpretation of probability is crippling our ability to communicate \nHow super are Superforecasters? \nMarginal versus conditional guarantees (this is exactly as boring as it sounds) \nHow to pronounce Samotsvety and are they Italian or Eastern European or what?\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nIn Continued Defense Of Non-Frequentist Probabilities\nArticle on superforecasting by Gavin Leech and Misha Yugadin \nEssay by Michael Story on superforecasting \nExistential risk tournament: Superforecasters vs AI doomers and Ben's blogpost about it \nThe Good Judgment Project \n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nDuring the pandemic, Dominic Cummings said some of the most useful stuff that he received and circulated in the British government was not forecasting. It was qualitative information explaining the general model of what’s going on, which enabled decision-makers to think more clearly about their options for action and the likely consequences. If you’re worried about a new disease outbreak, you don’t just want a percentage probability estimate about future case numbers, you want an explanation of how the virus is likely to spread, what you can do about it, how you can prevent it.\n- Michael Story \n\nIs it bad that one term can mean both perfect information (as in 1) and total lack of information (as in 3)? No. This is no different from how we discuss things when we’re not using probability.\n\nDo vaccines cause autism? No. Does drinking monkey blood cause autism? Also no. My evidence on the vaccines question is dozens of excellent studies, conducted so effectively that we’re as sure about this as we are about anything in biology. My evidence on the monkey blood question is that nobody’s ever proposed this and it would be weird if it were true. Still, it’s perfectly fine to say the single-word answer “no” to both of them to describe where I currently stand. If someone wants to know how much evidence/certainty is behind my “no”, they can ask, and I’ll tell them.\n- SA, Section 2\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat's your credence in Bayesianism? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eAfter four episodes spent fawning over Scott Alexander\u0026#39;s \u0026quot;Non-libertarian FAQ\u0026quot;, we turn around and attack the good man instead. In this episode we respond to Scott\u0026#39;s piece \u0026quot;In Continued Defense of Non-Frequentist Probabilities\u0026quot;, and respond to each of his five arguments defending Bayesian probability. Like moths to a flame, we apparently cannot let the probability subject slide, sorry people. But the good news is that before getting there, you get to here about some therapists and pedophiles (therapeutic pedophelia?). What\u0026#39;s the probability that Scott changes his mind based on this episode?\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy we\u0026#39;re not defending frequentism as a philosophy \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Bayesian interpretation of probability \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe importance of being explicit about assumptions \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy it\u0026#39;s insane to think that 50% should mean both \u0026quot;equally likely\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;I have no effing idea\u0026quot;. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy Scott\u0026#39;s interpretation of probability is crippling \u003cem\u003eour\u003c/em\u003e ability to communicate \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow super are Superforecasters? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarginal versus conditional guarantees (this is exactly as boring as it sounds) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow to pronounce Samotsvety and are they Italian or Eastern European or what?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-non-frequentist\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIn Continued Defense Of Non-Frequentist Probabilities\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://progress.institute/can-policymakers-trust-forecasters/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eArticle on superforecasting by Gavin Leech and Misha Yugadin\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.samstack.io/p/five-questions-for-michael-story\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEssay by Michael Story on superforecasting\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://forecastingresearch.org/news/results-from-the-2022-existential-risk-persuasion-tournament\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eExistential risk tournament: Superforecasters vs AI doomers\u003c/a\u003e and \u003ca href=\"https://benchugg.com/writing/superforecasting/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eBen\u0026#39;s blogpost about it\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://goodjudgment.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Good Judgment Project\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the pandemic, Dominic Cummings said some of the most useful stuff that he received and circulated in the British government was not forecasting. It was qualitative information explaining the general model of what’s going on, which enabled decision-makers to think more clearly about their options for action and the likely consequences. If you’re worried about a new disease outbreak, you don’t just want a percentage probability estimate about future case numbers, you want an explanation of how the virus is likely to spread, what you can do about it, how you can prevent it.\u003cbr\u003e\n- \u003ca href=\"https://www.samstack.io/p/five-questions-for-michael-story\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMichael Story\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIs it bad that one term can mean both perfect information (as in 1) and total lack of information (as in 3)? No. This is no different from how we discuss things when we’re not using probability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDo vaccines cause autism? No. Does drinking monkey blood cause autism? Also no. My evidence on the vaccines question is dozens of excellent studies, conducted so effectively that we’re as sure about this as we are about anything in biology. My evidence on the monkey blood question is that nobody’s ever proposed this and it would be weird if it were true. Still, it’s perfectly fine to say the single-word answer “no” to both of them to describe where I currently stand. If someone wants to know how much evidence/certainty is behind my “no”, they can ask, and I’ll tell them.\u003cbr\u003e\n- SA, Section 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat\u0026#39;s your credence in Bayesianism? Tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":" Cursed to return to this subject again, we attack the big man himself on probability. What's your credence that we're correct?","date_published":"2024-06-20T08:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/3ac225c1-a486-428e-bdcf-2d1973d2c80b.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":100957621,"duration_in_seconds":6309}]},{"id":"da6eb19f-5d9b-42e9-a252-67d6ac79e9e5","title":"#68 - Libertarianism IV: Political Issues (w/ Bruce Nielson)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/68","content_text":"The final part in a series which has polarized the nation. We tackle -- alongside Bruce Nielson as always -- the remaining part of Scott's FAQ: Political Issues. Can the government get anything right? Has Scott strawmanned the libertarian argument in this section? Is libertarianism an economic theory, a political theory, a metaphysical theory, or a branch of physics? And what do Milton and Ludwig have to say about all this? Warning: we get a little meta with this one...\n\nWe discuss\n\n\nIs the government effective at doing anything? \nWhat's the use of thinking counterfactually? \nIs it just market failures all the way down?\nThree kinds of anarcho-capitalists \nThe economic calculation problem\nIs an economic theory necessarily political? \nWhat to make of the claim that austrian economics is like physics \nBut wait, isn't it also metaphysics? \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nScott's FAQ \nNapolean science funding:\n\n\nCanned food\nMore readings\n\nBruce's Theory of Anything Pod and on twitter at @bnielson01\nVaden's blog posts on Libertarianism:\n\n\nFirst: Is Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\nSecond: Can we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\n\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nThe Argument: Government can’t do anything right. Its forays into every field are tinged in failure. Whether it’s trying to create contradictory “state owned businesses”, funding pet projects that end up over budget and useless, or creating burdensome and ridiculous “consumer protection” rules, its heavy-handed actions are always detrimental and usually embarrassing. \n...\nThe Counterargument: Government sometimes, though by no means always, does things right, and some of its institutions and programs are justifiably considered models of efficiency and human ingenuity. There are various reasons why people are less likely to notice these.\n- Scott's FAQ\n\n7.1.1: Okay, fine. But that’s a special case where, given an infinite budget, they were able to accomplish something that private industry had no incentive to try. And to their credit, they did pull it off, but do you have any examples of government succeeding at anything more practical?\n\nEradicating smallpox and polio globally, and cholera and malaria from their endemic areas in the US. Inventing the computer, mouse, digital camera, and email. Building the information superhighway and the regular superhighway. Delivering clean, practically-free water and cheap on-the-grid electricity across an entire continent. Forcing integration and leading the struggle for civil rights. Setting up the Global Positioning System. Ensuring accurate disaster forecasts for hurricanes, volcanoes, and tidal waves. Zero life-savings-destroying bank runs in eighty years. Inventing nuclear power and the game theory necessary to avoid destroying the world with it.\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us think counterfactually and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nHow much would you like to pay for a fresh gulp of air? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Bruce Nielson.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eThe final part in a series which has polarized the nation. We tackle -- alongside Bruce Nielson as always -- the remaining part of Scott\u0026#39;s FAQ: Political Issues. Can the government get \u003cem\u003eanything\u003c/em\u003e right? Has Scott strawmanned the libertarian argument in this section? Is libertarianism an economic theory, a political theory, a metaphysical theory, or a branch of physics? And what do Milton and Ludwig have to say about all this? Warning: we get a little meta with this one...\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs the government effective at doing anything? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat\u0026#39;s the use of thinking counterfactually? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs it just market failures all the way down?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThree kinds of anarcho-capitalists \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe economic calculation problem\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs an economic theory necessarily political? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat to make of the claim that austrian economics is like physics \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBut wait, isn\u0026#39;t it also metaphysics? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eScott\u0026#39;s FAQ\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNapolean science funding:\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canning#French_origins\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCanned food\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/napoleons-lifelong-interest-science-180964485/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMore readings\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBruce\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eTheory of Anything Pod\u003c/a\u003e and on twitter at @bnielson01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s blog posts on Libertarianism:\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFirst: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/aecr-challenge/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIs Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSecond: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/predicting-human-behaviour/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCan we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Argument:\u003c/strong\u003e Government can’t do anything right. Its forays into every field are tinged in failure. Whether it’s trying to create contradictory “state owned businesses”, funding pet projects that end up over budget and useless, or creating burdensome and ridiculous “consumer protection” rules, its heavy-handed actions are always detrimental and usually embarrassing. \u003cbr\u003e\n...\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eThe Counterargument:\u003c/strong\u003e Government sometimes, though by no means always, does things right, and some of its institutions and programs are justifiably considered models of efficiency and human ingenuity. There are various reasons why people are less likely to notice these.\u003cbr\u003e\n- Scott\u0026#39;s FAQ\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.1.1: Okay, fine. But that’s a special case where, given an infinite budget, they were able to accomplish something that private industry had no incentive to try. And to their credit, they did pull it off, but do you have any examples of government succeeding at anything more practical?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eEradicating smallpox and polio globally, and cholera and malaria from their endemic areas in the US. Inventing the computer, mouse, digital camera, and email. Building the information superhighway \u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e the regular superhighway. Delivering clean, practically-free water and cheap on-the-grid electricity across an entire continent. Forcing integration and leading the struggle for civil rights. Setting up the Global Positioning System. Ensuring accurate disaster forecasts for hurricanes, volcanoes, and tidal waves. Zero life-savings-destroying bank runs in eighty years. Inventing nuclear power \u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e the game theory necessary to avoid destroying the world with it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us think counterfactually and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHow much would \u003cem\u003eyou\u003c/em\u003e like to pay for a fresh gulp of air? Tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"In our last libertarianism episode we tackle the remaining part of Scott's FAQ: Political issues! Can government ever do anything right? How should we think about that question? Is Scott being fair to libertarians?","date_published":"2024-05-30T04:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/da6eb19f-5d9b-42e9-a252-67d6ac79e9e5.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":92639009,"duration_in_seconds":6616}]},{"id":"a795fbf4-302e-4b98-833c-98c4d192b982","title":"#67 - Libertarianism III: Social Issues (w/ Bruce Nielson) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/67","content_text":"Have you ever wanted to be more rich? Have you considered just working a bit harder? Welcome to part III of our libertarian series, where we discuss Part B: Social Issues of Scott Alexander's Anti-Libertarian FAQ, which critiques the libertarian view that if you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, well, you deserve that too. As always, the estimable Bruce Nielson (@bnielson) helps guide is through the thorny wicket of libertarian thought. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nDo the poor deserve to be poor? Waddabout the rich? \nIs dogmatism ever a good thing? \nIs social mobility determined in part by parental wealth? \nIs this due to genetics, culture, upbringing or something else?\nThe chances of escaping the lower class \nDoes government regulation increase social mobility? \nWhy progressive taxation makes sense\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nDavid Friedman's response\nBruce's Theory Of Anything podcast \nPopperian/Deutschian FB group: Many Worlds of David Deutsch\nOn dogmatism: \n\n\nBruce's episode: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/episodes/Episode-51-Was-Karl-Popper-Dogmatic-e1obs0m/a-a2hb64g\nBen's blog post: https://benchugg.com/writing/dogmatism/\n\nVaden's blog posts on Libertarianism:\n\n\nFirst: Is Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\nSecond: Can we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\n\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nThe Argument:\n\nThose who work hardest (and smartest) should get the most money. Not only should we not begrudge them that money, but we should thank them for the good they must have done for the world in order to satisfy so many consumers.\n\nPeople who do not work hard should not get as much money. If they want more money, they should work harder. Getting more money without working harder or smarter is unfair, and indicative of a false sense of entitlement.\n\nUnfortunately, modern liberal society has internalized the opposite principle: that those who work hardest are greedy people who must have stolen from those who work less hard, and that we should distrust them at until they give most of their ill-gotten gains away to others. The “progressive” taxation system as it currently exists serves this purpose.\n\nThis way of thinking is not only morally wrong-headed, but economically catastrophic. Leaving wealth in the hands of the rich would “make the pie bigger”, allowing the extra wealth to “trickle down” to the poor naturally.\n\nThe Counterargument:\n\nHard work and intelligence are contributory factors to success, but depending on the way you phrase the question, you find you need other factors to explain between one-half and nine-tenths of the difference in success within the United States; within the world at large the numbers are much higher.\n\nIf a poor person can’t keep a job solely because she was lead-poisoned from birth until age 16, is it still fair to blame her for her failure? And is it still so unthinkable to take a little bit of money from everyone who was lucky enough to grow up in an area without lead poisoning, and use it to help her and detoxify her neighborhood?\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us maintain poverty traps and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nDo your part to increase social mobility by sending your hard-earned money to: incrementspodcast@gmail.com Special Guest: Bruce Nielson.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eHave you ever wanted to be more rich? Have you considered just working a bit harder? Welcome to part III of our libertarian series, where we discuss \u003cem\u003ePart B: Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e of Scott Alexander\u0026#39;s Anti-Libertarian FAQ, which critiques the libertarian view that if you\u0026#39;re rich, you deserve it, and if you\u0026#39;re poor, well, you deserve that too. As always, the estimable Bruce Nielson (@bnielson) helps guide is through the thorny wicket of libertarian thought. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDo the poor deserve to be poor? Waddabout the rich? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs dogmatism ever a good thing? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs social mobility determined in part by parental wealth? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs this due to genetics, culture, upbringing or something else?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe chances of escaping the lower class \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoes government regulation increase social mobility? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy progressive taxation makes sense\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid Friedman\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Miscellaneous/My%20Response%20to%20a%20Non-Libertarian%20faq.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eresponse\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBruce\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eTheory Of Anything podcast \u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopperian/Deutschian FB group: \u003ca href=\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/2188597894605769/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMany Worlds of David Deutsch\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOn dogmatism: \n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBruce\u0026#39;s episode: \u003ca href=\"https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/episodes/Episode-51-Was-Karl-Popper-Dogmatic-e1obs0m/a-a2hb64g\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/episodes/Episode-51-Was-Karl-Popper-Dogmatic-e1obs0m/a-a2hb64g\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026#39;s blog post: \u003ca href=\"https://benchugg.com/writing/dogmatism/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://benchugg.com/writing/dogmatism/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s blog posts on Libertarianism:\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFirst: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/aecr-challenge/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIs Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSecond: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/predicting-human-behaviour/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCan we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Argument:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThose who work hardest (and smartest) should get the most money. Not only should we not begrudge them that money, but we should thank them for the good they must have done for the world in order to satisfy so many consumers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePeople who do not work hard should not get as much money. If they want more money, they should work harder. Getting more money without working harder or smarter is unfair, and indicative of a false sense of entitlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eUnfortunately, modern liberal society has internalized the opposite principle: that those who work hardest are greedy people who must have stolen from those who work less hard, and that we should distrust them at until they give most of their ill-gotten gains away to others. The “progressive” taxation system as it currently exists serves this purpose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis way of thinking is not only morally wrong-headed, but economically catastrophic. Leaving wealth in the hands of the rich would “make the pie bigger”, allowing the extra wealth to “trickle down” to the poor naturally.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe Counterargument:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHard work and intelligence are contributory factors to success, but depending on the way you phrase the question, you find you need other factors to explain between one-half and nine-tenths of the difference in success within the United States; within the world at large the numbers are much higher.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIf a poor person can’t keep a job solely because she was lead-poisoned from birth until age 16, is it still fair to blame her for her failure? And is it still so unthinkable to take a little bit of money from everyone who was lucky enough to grow up in an area without lead poisoning, and use it to help her and detoxify her neighborhood?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us maintain poverty traps and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDo your part to increase social mobility by sending your hard-earned money to: \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Back for part III of libertarianism series, when we find out if poor people deserve to be poor! ","date_published":"2024-05-09T06:45:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/a795fbf4-302e-4b98-833c-98c4d192b982.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":101327515,"duration_in_seconds":6332}]},{"id":"e8ecc2d6-cb6e-4671-831a-85926885ed3c","title":"#66 - Sex Research, Addiction, and Financial Domination (w/ Aella)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/66","content_text":"What do you get when you mix nerds and sex research? A deep dive into the world of fetish statistics, men's calibration about women's sexual preferences, and the crazy underground world of financial domination. Stay tuned as Aella walks the boys through the world of gangbangs, camming, OnlyFans, escorting, findom, and even live-tests Vaden's wild hypothesis against her huge, thick, dataset. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nHow to describe what Aella does\nAella's bangin' birthday party \nThe state of sex research \nConservative and neo-trad pushback and whether Aella is immune from cancellation\nAre men calibrated when it comes to predicting women's sexual preferences? \nThe wild world of findom (financial domination) \nIs findom addiction worse than other addictions? \nDifferences between camming and OnlyFans \nCan a fetish ever be considered self-harm? \nPlus some live hypothesis testing! Does Vaden's hypothesis survive...?\nAella's forthcoming journal based on Rationalist principles \n\n\nReferences from the ep\n\n\nAella's good at sex series \nAella's website \nAella's blogpost on Fetish Tabooness vs Popularity \n\"I spent $3,400 in a single day on financial domination\": financial-domination addict James\n\n\nClip starts at 12:25\n\nFindom Addicts Anonymous\nFetlife bans Findom \nDomme won't let me quit (unethical), addicted to findom, please help | Reddit\nI don't feel bad for subs that are addicted to findom.\n\n\nFindom References\n\n(additional sources used for episode prep that weren't mention in the episode)\n\n\nRandom Men Pay My Bills | BBC Podcast\nInterview with a Recovering Paypig - A Financial Domination Addict\nFINDOM is not FEMDOM\nConfessions of a 'Pay Pig': Why I Give Away Money to Dominant Women I Meet Online\nSpecial Episode on Findoms... | The Kink Perspective Podcast\nShe Gets Paid Just to Humiliate Her Fans | New York Times\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us put heads in toilets and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nSend us $500 and call us your Queen, you steaming pile of s***: incrementspodcast@gmail.com Special Guest: Aella.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWhat do you get when you mix nerds and sex research? A deep dive into the world of fetish statistics, men\u0026#39;s calibration about women\u0026#39;s sexual preferences, and the crazy underground world of financial domination. Stay tuned as Aella walks the boys through the world of gangbangs, camming, OnlyFans, escorting, findom, and even live-tests Vaden\u0026#39;s wild hypothesis against her huge, thick, dataset. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow to describe what Aella does\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAella\u0026#39;s bangin\u0026#39; birthday party \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe state of sex research \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConservative and neo-trad pushback and whether Aella is immune from cancellation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAre men calibrated when it comes to predicting women\u0026#39;s sexual preferences? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe wild world of findom (financial domination) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs findom addiction worse than other addictions? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDifferences between camming and OnlyFans \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCan a fetish ever be considered self-harm? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePlus some live hypothesis testing! Does Vaden\u0026#39;s hypothesis survive...?\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAella\u0026#39;s forthcoming journal based on Rationalist principles \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences from the ep\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAella\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://aella.substack.com/p/how-to-be-good-at-sex-starve-her\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003egood at sex\u003c/a\u003e series \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAella\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://knowingless.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ewebsite\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAella\u0026#39;s blogpost on \u003ca href=\"https://aella.substack.com/p/fetish-tabooness-vs-popularity\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eFetish Tabooness vs Popularity \u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://youtu.be/8xCjXWDf6Y0?t=745\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u0026quot;I spent $3,400 in a single day on financial domination\u0026quot;: financial-domination addict James\u003c/a\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClip starts at 12:25\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://findomaddictsanonymous.org/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eFindom Addicts Anonymous\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/FemdomCommunity/comments/89yx1n/fetlife_is_going_to_ban_financial_domination_and/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eFetlife bans Findom\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/paypigsupportgroup/comments/15n8i8z/domme_wont_let_me_quit_unethical_addicted_to/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDomme won\u0026#39;t let me quit (unethical), addicted to findom, please help | Reddit\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/findomsupportgroup/comments/14se62y/i_dont_feel_bad_for_subs_that_are_addicted_to/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eI don\u0026#39;t feel bad for subs that are addicted to findom.\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eFindom References\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e(additional sources used for episode prep that weren\u0026#39;t mention in the episode)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07q42yw\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eRandom Men Pay My Bills | BBC Podcast\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N68UT_LYl-Q\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eInterview with a Recovering Paypig - A Financial Domination Addict\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://podcast.damianachiphd.com/blog/findom-is-not-femdom/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eFINDOM is not FEMDOM\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://archive.ph/Jdyhi\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eConfessions of a \u0026#39;Pay Pig\u0026#39;: Why I Give Away Money to Dominant Women I Meet Online\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.everand.com/podcast/694373930/Season-2-Episode-57-Special-Episode-on-Findoms\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eSpecial Episode on Findoms... | The Kink Perspective Podcast\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/style/findom-kink.html?smid=fb-nytimes\u0026smtyp=cur\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eShe Gets Paid Just to Humiliate Her Fans | New York Times\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us put heads in toilets and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSend us $500 and call us your Queen, you steaming pile of s***: \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Aella.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Aella joins the boys for a chat on fetishes, gangbangs, OnlyFans, addiction, and the crazy underground world of Financial Domination (aka 'findom'). ","date_published":"2024-04-18T05:15:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/e8ecc2d6-cb6e-4671-831a-85926885ed3c.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":63949843,"duration_in_seconds":3996}]},{"id":"7d4c2549-169b-4b7b-88ae-00fc440a7f1e","title":"#65 - Libertarianism II: Economic Issues (w/ Bruce Nielson)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/65","content_text":"Back at it again, as we coerce you into listening to Part 2 of our four part series on Libertarianism, with Mr. Bruce Nielson (@bnielson01). In this episode we cover the Economic Issues section of Scott Alexander's (non-aggressive and principled) non-libertarian FAQ, and discuss his four major economic critiques of the libertarian view that free and voluntary trade between consenting, informed, rational individuals is the best possible thing ever, with no downsides at all. Also, can we interest you in buying some wasps? \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nLoose ends from last episode - coercion and the Non-Aggression Principle \nWhat distinguishes a conservative like Bruce from a libertarian? \nExternalities\nBoycotts and Coordination Problems \nIrrational Choices \nLack of Information \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nThe Non-libertarian FAQ \nPlanet Money on the Porcupine Freedom Festival\n\n\nVaden's blog posts on Libertarianism / Austrian Economics / Anarcho-Captialism / Whateveryawannacallit\n\n\nFirst: Is Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\nSecond: Can we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nThe Argument:\n\nIn a free market, all trade has to be voluntary, so you will never agree to a trade unless it benefits you.\n\nFurther, you won’t make a trade unless you think it’s the best possible trade you can make. If you knew you could make a better one, you’d hold out for that. So trades in a free market are not only better than nothing, they’re also the best possible transaction you could make at that time.\n\nLabor is no different from any other commercial transaction in this respect. You won’t agree to a job unless it benefits you more than anything else you can do with your time, and your employer won’t hire you unless it benefits her more than anything else she can do with her money. So a voluntarily agreed labor contract must benefit both parties, and must do so more than any other alternative.\n\nIf every trade in a free market benefits both parties, then any time the government tries to restrict trade in some way, it must hurt both parties. Or, to put it another way, you can help someone by giving them more options, but you can’t help them by taking away options. And in a free market, where everyone starts with all options, all the government can do is take options away.\n\nThe Counterargument:\n\nThis treats the world as a series of producer-consumer dyads instead of as a system in which every transaction affects everyone else. Also, it treats consumers as coherent entities who have specific variables like “utility” and “demand” and know exactly what they are, which doesn’t always work.\n- https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\n\nWhat is an externality?\n\n1.1: What is an externality?\n\n\nAn externality is when I make a trade with you, but it has some accidental effect on other people who weren’t involved in the trade.\n\n\nSuppose for example that I sell my house to an amateur wasp farmer. Only he’s not a very good wasp farmer, so his wasps usually get loose and sting people all over the neighborhood every couple of days.\n\nThis trade between the wasp farmer and myself has benefited both of us, but it’s harmed people who weren’t consulted; namely, my neighbors, who are now locked indoors clutching cans of industrial-strength insect repellent. Although the trade was voluntary for both the wasp farmer and myself, it wasn’t voluntary for my neighbors.\n\nAnother example of externalities would be a widget factory that spews carcinogenic chemicals into the air. When I trade with the widget factory I’m benefiting – I get widgets – and they’re benefiting – they get money. But the people who breathe in the carcinogenic chemicals weren’t consulted in the trade.\n\n2.3: How do coordination problems justify regulation of ethical business practices?\n\n... Let’s say Wanda’s Widgets has one million customers. Each customer pays it $100 per year, for a total income of $100 million. Each customer prefers Wanda to her competitor Wayland, who charges $150 for widgets of equal quality. Now let’s say Wanda’s Widgets does some unspeakably horrible act which makes it $10 million per year, but offends every one of its million customers.\n\nThere is no incentive for a single customer to boycott Wanda’s Widgets. After all, that customer’s boycott will cost the customer $50 (she will have to switch to Wayland) and make an insignificant difference to Wanda (who is still earning $99,999,900 of her original hundred million). The customer takes significant inconvenience, and Wanda neither cares nor stops doing her unspeakably horrible act (after all, it’s giving her $10 million per year, and only losing her $100).\n\nThe only reason it would be in a customer’s interests to boycott is if she believed over a hundred thousand other customers would join her. In that case, the boycott would be costing Wanda more than the $10 million she gains from her unspeakably horrible act, and it’s now in her self-interest to stop committing the act. However, unless each boycotter believes 99,999 others will join her, she is inconveniencing herself for no benefit.\n\nFurthermore, if a customer offended by Wanda’s actions believes 100,000 others will boycott Wanda, then it’s in the customer’s self-interest to “defect” from the boycott and buy Wanda’s products. After all, the customer will lose money if she buys Wayland’s more expensive widgets, and this is unnecessary – the 100,000 other boycotters will change Wanda’s mind with or without her participation.\n\n3.1: What do you mean by “irrational choices”?\n\nA company (Thaler, 2007, download study as .pdf) gives its employees the opportunity to sign up for a pension plan. They contribute a small amount of money each month, and the company will also contribute some money, and overall it ends up as a really good deal for the employees and gives them an excellent retirement fund. Only a small minority of the employees sign up.\n\nThe libertarian would answer that this is fine. Although some outsider might condescendingly declare it “a really good deal”, the employees are the most likely to understand their own unique financial situation. They may have a better pension plan somewhere else, or mistrust the company’s promises, or expect not to need much money in their own age. For some outsider to declare that they are wrong to avoid the pension plan, or worse to try to force them into it for their own good, would be the worst sort of arrogant paternalism, and an attack on the employees’ dignity as rational beings.\n\nThen the company switches tactics. It automatically signs the employees up for the pension plan, but offers them the option to opt out. This time, only a small minority of the employees opt out.\n\nThat makes it very hard to spin the first condition as the employees rationally preferring not to participate in the pension plan, since the second condition reveals the opposite preference. It looks more like they just didn’t have the mental energy to think about it or go through the trouble of signing up. And in the latter condition, they didn’t have the mental energy to think about it or go through the trouble of opting out.\n\nIf the employees were rationally deciding whether or not to sign up, then some outsider regulating their decision would be a disaster. But if the employees are making demonstrably irrational choices because of a lack of mental energy, and if people do so consistently and predictably, then having someone else who has considered the issue in more depth regulate their choices could lead to a better outcome.\n\n4.1: What do you mean by “lack of information”?\n\nMany economic theories start with the assumption that everyone has perfect information about everything. For example, if a company’s products are unsafe, these economic theories assume consumers know the product is unsafe, and so will buy less of it.\n\nNo economist literally believes consumers have perfect information, but there are still strong arguments for keeping the “perfect information” assumption. These revolve around the idea that consumers will be motivated to pursue information about things that are important to them. For example, if they care about product safety, they will fund investigations into product safety, or only buy products that have been certified safe by some credible third party. The only case in which a consumer would buy something without information on it is if the consumer had no interest in the information, or wasn’t willing to pay as much for the information as it would cost, in which case the consumer doesn’t care much about the information anyway, and it is a success rather than a failure of the market that it has not given it to her.\n\nIn nonlibertarian thought, people care so much about things like product safety and efficacy, or the ethics of how a product is produced, that the government needs to ensure them. In libertarian thought, if people really care about product safety, efficacy and ethics, the market will ensure them itself, and if they genuinely don’t care, that’s okay too.\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us negative positive externalities and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nHow much would you pay for a fresh nest of high quality, free range wasps? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBack at it again, as we coerce you into listening to Part 2 of our four part series on Libertarianism, with Mr. Bruce Nielson (@bnielson01). In this episode we cover the Economic Issues section of Scott Alexander\u0026#39;s (non-aggressive and principled) \u003ca href=\"https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003enon-libertarian FAQ\u003c/a\u003e, and discuss his four major economic critiques of the libertarian view that free and voluntary trade between consenting, informed, rational individuals is the best possible thing ever, with no downsides at all. Also, can we interest you in buying some wasps? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoose ends from last episode - coercion and the Non-Aggression Principle \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat distinguishes a conservative like Bruce from a libertarian? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExternalities\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoycotts and Coordination Problems \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIrrational Choices \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLack of Information \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Non-libertarian FAQ\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/28/534735727/episode-286-libertarian-summer-camp\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ePlanet Money on the Porcupine Freedom Festival\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s blog posts on Libertarianism / Austrian Economics / Anarcho-Captialism / Whateveryawannacallit\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFirst: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/aecr-challenge/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIs Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSecond: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/predicting-human-behaviour/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCan we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Argument:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn a free market, all trade has to be voluntary, so you will never agree to a trade unless it benefits you.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFurther, you won’t make a trade unless you think it’s the best possible trade you can make. If you knew you could make a better one, you’d hold out for that. So trades in a free market are not only better than nothing, they’re also the best possible transaction you could make at that time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eLabor is no different from any other commercial transaction in this respect. You won’t agree to a job unless it benefits you more than anything else you can do with your time, and your employer won’t hire you unless it benefits her more than anything else she can do with her money. So a voluntarily agreed labor contract must benefit both parties, and must do so more than any other alternative.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIf every trade in a free market benefits both parties, then any time the government tries to restrict trade in some way, it must hurt both parties. Or, to put it another way, you can help someone by giving them more options, but you can’t help them by taking away options. And in a free market, where everyone starts with all options, all the government can do is take options away.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Counterargument:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis treats the world as a series of producer-consumer dyads instead of as a system in which every transaction affects everyone else. Also, it treats consumers as coherent entities who have specific variables like “utility” and “demand” and know exactly what they are, which doesn’t always work.\u003cbr\u003e\n- \u003ca href=\"https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat is an externality?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e1.1: What is an externality?\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn externality is when I make a trade with you, but it has some accidental effect on other people who weren’t involved in the trade.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSuppose for example that I sell my house to an amateur wasp farmer. Only he’s not a very good wasp farmer, so his wasps usually get loose and sting people all over the neighborhood every couple of days.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis trade between the wasp farmer and myself has benefited both of us, but it’s harmed people who weren’t consulted; namely, my neighbors, who are now locked indoors clutching cans of industrial-strength insect repellent. Although the trade was voluntary for both the wasp farmer and myself, it wasn’t voluntary for my neighbors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAnother example of externalities would be a widget factory that spews carcinogenic chemicals into the air. When I trade with the widget factory I’m benefiting – I get widgets – and they’re benefiting – they get money. But the people who breathe in the carcinogenic chemicals weren’t consulted in the trade.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3: How do coordination problems justify regulation of ethical business practices?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e... Let’s say Wanda’s Widgets has one million customers. Each customer pays it $100 per year, for a total income of $100 million. Each customer prefers Wanda to her competitor Wayland, who charges $150 for widgets of equal quality. Now let’s say Wanda’s Widgets does some unspeakably horrible act which makes it $10 million per year, but offends every one of its million customers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no incentive for a single customer to boycott Wanda’s Widgets. After all, that customer’s boycott will cost the customer $50 (she will have to switch to Wayland) and make an insignificant difference to Wanda (who is still earning $99,999,900 of her original hundred million). The customer takes significant inconvenience, and Wanda neither cares nor stops doing her unspeakably horrible act (after all, it’s giving her $10 million per year, and only losing her $100).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe only reason it would be in a customer’s interests to boycott is if she believed over a hundred thousand other customers would join her. In that case, the boycott would be costing Wanda more than the $10 million she gains from her unspeakably horrible act, and it’s now in her self-interest to stop committing the act. However, unless each boycotter believes 99,999 others will join her, she is inconveniencing herself for no benefit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, if a customer offended by Wanda’s actions believes 100,000 others will boycott Wanda, then it’s in the customer’s self-interest to “defect” from the boycott and buy Wanda’s products. After all, the customer will lose money if she buys Wayland’s more expensive widgets, and this is unnecessary – the 100,000 other boycotters will change Wanda’s mind with or without her participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1: What do you mean by “irrational choices”?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eA company (Thaler, 2007, download study as .pdf) gives its employees the opportunity to sign up for a pension plan. They contribute a small amount of money each month, and the company will also contribute some money, and overall it ends up as a really good deal for the employees and gives them an excellent retirement fund. Only a small minority of the employees sign up.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe libertarian would answer that this is fine. Although some outsider might condescendingly declare it “a really good deal”, the employees are the most likely to understand their own unique financial situation. They may have a better pension plan somewhere else, or mistrust the company’s promises, or expect not to need much money in their own age. For some outsider to declare that they are wrong to avoid the pension plan, or worse to try to force them into it for their own good, would be the worst sort of arrogant paternalism, and an attack on the employees’ dignity as rational beings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThen the company switches tactics. It automatically signs the employees up for the pension plan, but offers them the option to opt out. This time, only a small minority of the employees opt out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThat makes it very hard to spin the first condition as the employees rationally preferring not to participate in the pension plan, since the second condition reveals the opposite preference. It looks more like they just didn’t have the mental energy to think about it or go through the trouble of signing up. And in the latter condition, they didn’t have the mental energy to think about it or go through the trouble of opting out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIf the employees were rationally deciding whether or not to sign up, then some outsider regulating their decision would be a disaster. But if the employees are making demonstrably irrational choices because of a lack of mental energy, and if people do so consistently and predictably, then having someone else who has considered the issue in more depth regulate their choices could lead to a better outcome.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1: What do you mean by “lack of information”?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eMany economic theories start with the assumption that everyone has perfect information about everything. For example, if a company’s products are unsafe, these economic theories assume consumers know the product is unsafe, and so will buy less of it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eNo economist literally believes consumers have perfect information, but there are still strong arguments for keeping the “perfect information” assumption. These revolve around the idea that consumers will be motivated to pursue information about things that are important to them. For example, if they care about product safety, they will fund investigations into product safety, or only buy products that have been certified safe by some credible third party. The only case in which a consumer would buy something without information on it is if the consumer had no interest in the information, or wasn’t willing to pay as much for the information as it would cost, in which case the consumer doesn’t care much about the information anyway, and it is a success rather than a failure of the market that it has not given it to her.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn nonlibertarian thought, people care so much about things like product safety and efficacy, or the ethics of how a product is produced, that the government needs to ensure them. In libertarian thought, if people really care about product safety, efficacy and ethics, the market will ensure them itself, and if they genuinely don’t care, that’s okay too.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us negative positive externalities and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHow much would you pay for a fresh nest of high quality, free range wasps? Tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"In our second episode on Libertarianism, we finally dive into the meat of Scott Alexander's excellent critique, and cover four major flaws with the libertarian position - externalities, coordination problems, irrational choices, and lack of information. Buckle up. ","date_published":"2024-03-28T13:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/7d4c2549-169b-4b7b-88ae-00fc440a7f1e.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":89321638,"duration_in_seconds":5582}]},{"id":"4b390d3c-7472-44ff-86ac-a36d3c7ccca8","title":"#64 - Libertarianism I: Intro and Moral Issues (w/ Bruce Nielson)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/64","content_text":"Liberty! Freedom! Coercion! Taxes are theft! The State is The Enemy! Bitcoin! Crypto! Down with the central banks! Let's all return to the Gold Standard! \n\nHave you encountered such phrases in the wild? Confused, perhaps, as to why an afternoon beer with a friend become an extended diatribe against John Maynard Kaynes? Us too, which is why we're diving into the ideological source of such views: Libertarianism.\n\nWelcome to Part 1 of a four part series where we, with Bruce Nielson (@bnielson01) as our battle-hardened guide, dive into Scott Alexander's non-libertarian FAQ. Ought George help, or ought George respect the government's property rights? Let's find out. \n\nAnd make sure to check out Bruce's excellent The Theory Of Anything podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218\n\nWe discuss\n\n\nVarieties of libertarianism \nWhy are some libertarians so ideological?\nIs taxation theft? \nThe problem of public goods \n\"Proprietary communities\" and the perfect libertarian society \nWhy the perfect libertarian society doesn't escape taxation\nAre we living in the libertarian utopia right now? \nTaxes as membership fees \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nThe Non-libertarian FAQ \nGeorge ought to help\nThe Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman \n\n\nVaden's blog posts on Libertarianism / Austrian Economics / Anarcho-Captialism / Whateveryawannacallit\n\n\nFirst: Is Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\nSecond: Can we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\n0.2: Do you hate libertarianism?\nNo.\n\nTo many people, libertarianism is a reaction against an over-regulated society, and an attempt to spread the word that some seemingly intractable problems can be solved by a hands-off approach. Many libertarians have made excellent arguments for why certain libertarian policies are the best options, and I agree with many of them. I think this kind of libertarianism is a valuable strain of political thought that deserves more attention, and I have no quarrel whatsoever with it and find myself leaning more and more in that direction myself.\n\nHowever, there’s a certain more aggressive, very American strain of libertarianism with which I do have a quarrel. This is the strain which, rather than analyzing specific policies and often deciding a more laissez-faire approach is best, starts with the tenet that government can do no right and private industry can do no wrong and uses this faith in place of more careful analysis. This faction is not averse to discussing politics, but tends to trot out the same few arguments about why less regulation has to be better. I wish I could blame this all on Ayn Rand, but a lot of it seems to come from people who have never heard of her. I suppose I could just add it to the bottom of the list of things I blame Reagan for.\n- https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us curtail freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nHow do you summon libertarians at a party?  Finish the punchline and tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eLiberty! Freedom! Coercion! Taxes are theft! The State is The Enemy! Bitcoin! Crypto! Down with the central banks! Let\u0026#39;s all return to the Gold Standard! \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHave you encountered such phrases in the wild? Confused, perhaps, as to why an afternoon beer with a friend become an extended diatribe against John Maynard Kaynes? Us too, which is why we\u0026#39;re diving into the ideological source of such views: Libertarianism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWelcome to Part 1 of a four part series where we, with Bruce Nielson (@bnielson01) as our battle-hardened guide, dive into Scott Alexander\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003enon-libertarian FAQ\u003c/a\u003e. Ought George help, or ought George respect the government\u0026#39;s property rights? Let\u0026#39;s find out. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAnd make sure to check out Bruce\u0026#39;s excellent The Theory Of Anything podcast here: \u003ca href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVarieties of libertarianism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy are some libertarians so ideological?\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs taxation theft? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe problem of public goods \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026quot;Proprietary communities\u0026quot; and the perfect libertarian society \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy the perfect libertarian society doesn\u0026#39;t escape taxation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAre we living in the libertarian utopia right now? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaxes as membership fees \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Non-libertarian FAQ\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs\u0026t=228s\u0026ab_channel=bitbutter\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eGeorge ought to help\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinery_of_Freedom\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Machinery of Freedom\u003c/a\u003e by David Friedman \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s blog posts on Libertarianism / Austrian Economics / Anarcho-Captialism / Whateveryawannacallit\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFirst: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/aecr-challenge/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIs Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSecond: \u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/predicting-human-behaviour/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCan we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.2: Do you hate libertarianism?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nNo.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTo many people, libertarianism is a reaction against an over-regulated society, and an attempt to spread the word that some seemingly intractable problems can be solved by a hands-off approach. Many libertarians have made excellent arguments for why certain libertarian policies are the best options, and I agree with many of them. I think this kind of libertarianism is a valuable strain of political thought that deserves more attention, and I have no quarrel whatsoever with it and find myself leaning more and more in that direction myself.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, there’s a certain more aggressive, very American strain of libertarianism with which I do have a quarrel. This is the strain which, rather than analyzing specific policies and often deciding a more laissez-faire approach is best, starts with the tenet that government can do no right and private industry can do no wrong and uses this faith in place of more careful analysis. This faction is not averse to discussing politics, but tends to trot out the same few arguments about why less regulation has to be better. I wish I could blame this all on Ayn Rand, but a lot of it seems to come from people who have never heard of her. I suppose I could just add it to the bottom of the list of things I blame Reagan for.\u003cbr\u003e\n- \u003ca href=\"https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us curtail freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHow do you summon libertarians at a party?  Finish the punchline and tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"First episode in a series on libertarianism. Coercion, taxation, freedom, liberty, every annoying keyword you've ever heard! Let's have it out.  ","date_published":"2024-03-06T19:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/4b390d3c-7472-44ff-86ac-a36d3c7ccca8.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":81105815,"duration_in_seconds":6758}]},{"id":"60abb63c-a659-4774-8dcf-bca464f43e0e","title":"#63 - Recycling is the Dumps","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/63","content_text":"Close your eyes, and think of a bright and pristine, clean and immaculately run recycling center, green'r than a giant's thumb.  Now think of a dirty, ugly, rotting landfill, stinking in the mid-day sun. Of these two scenarios, which, do you reckon, is worse for the environment?  \n\nIn this episode, Ben and Vaden attempt to reduce and refute a few reused canards about recycling and refuse, by rereading Rob Wiblin's excellent piece which addresses the aformentioned question: What you think about landfill and recycling is probably totally wrong.  Steel yourselves for this one folks, because you may need to paper over arguments with loved ones, trash old opinions, and shatter previous misconceptions.\nCheck out more of Rob's writing here. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nThe origins of recycling and some of the earliest instances\nEnergy efficiency of recycling plastics, aluminium, paper, steel, and electronic waste (e-waste) \nWhy your peanut butter jars and plastic coffee cups are not recyclable \nModern landfills and why they're awesome \nHow landfills can be used to create energy \nBuilding stuff on top of landfills\nWhy we're not even close to running out of space for landfills\nEconomic incentives for recycling vs top-down regulation\nThe modern recycling movement and its emergence in the 1990s \n\u0026gt; - Guiyu, China, where e-waste goes to die. \nThat a lot of your \"recycling\" ends up as garbage in the Philippines \n\n\nError Correction\n\n\nVaden misremembered what Smil wrote regarding four categories of recycling (Metals and Aluminum / Plastics / Paper / Electronic Waste (\"e-waste\")). He incorrectly quoted Smil as saying these four categories were exhaustive, and represented the four major categories recycling into which the majority of recycled material can be bucketed. This is incorrect- what Smil actually wrote was: \n\n\n\nI will devote the rest of this section (and of this chapter) to brief appraisals of the recycling efforts for four materials — two key metals (steel and aluminum) and plastics and paper—and of electronic waste, a category of discarded material that would most benefit from much enhanced rates of recycling. \n- Making the Modern World: Materials and De-materialization, Smill, p.179 \n\n\nA list of the top 9 recycled materials can be found here: https://www.rd.com/list/most-recyclable-materials/\n\nSources / Citations\n\n\nShare of plastic waste that is recycled, landfilled, incinerated and mismanaged, 2019\nSource for the claim that recycling glass is not energy efficient (and thus not necessarily better for the environment than landfilling): \n\n\nGlass bottles can be more pleasant to drink out of, but they also require more energy to manufacture and recycle. Glass bottles consume 170 to 250 percent more energy and emit 200 to 400 percent more carbon than plastic bottles, due mostly to the heat energy required in the manufacturing process. Of course, if the extra energy required by glass were produced from emissions-free sources, it wouldn’t necessarily matter that glass bottles required more energy to make and move. “If the energy is nuclear power or renewables there should be less of an environmental impact,” notes Figgener.\n- Apocalypse Never, Shellenburger, p.66\n\nCloth bags need to be reused 173 times to be more eco-friendly than a plastic bag: \nSource for claim that majority of e-waste ends up in China: \n\n\nPuckett’s organization partnered with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to put 200 geolocating tracking devices inside old computers, TVs and printers. They dropped them off nationwide at donation centers, recyclers and electronic take-back programs — enterprises that advertise themselves as “green,” “sustainable,” “earth friendly” and “environmentally responsible.” ... \nAbout a third of the tracked electronics went overseas — some as far as 12,000 miles. That includes six of the 14 tracker-equipped electronics that Puckett’s group dropped off to be recycled in Washington and Oregon.\n\nThe tracked electronics ended up in Mexico, Taiwan, China, Pakistan, Thailand, Dominican Republic, Canada and Kenya. Most often, they traveled across the Pacific to rural Hong Kong. (italics added.)\n\nNPR interview on the fact that some manufacturers will put recycling logos on products that aren't recyclable. \nBloomberg investigative report on tracking plastic to a town in Poland that burns it for energy. \nVideo about the apex landfill\nGuiyu, China. Wiki's description: \n\n\nOnce a rice village, the pollution has made Guiyu unable to produce crops for food and the water of the river is undrinkable. Many of the primitive recycling operations in Guiyu are toxic and dangerous to workers' health with 80% of children suffering from lead poisoning. Above-average miscarriage rates are also reported in the region. Workers use their bare hands to crack open electronics to strip away any parts that can be reused—including chips and valuable metals, such as gold, silver, etc. Workers also \"cook\" circuit boards to remove chips and solders, burn wires and other plastics to liberate metals such as copper; use highly corrosive and dangerous acid baths along the riverbanks to extract gold from the microchips; and sweep printer toner out of cartridges. Children are exposed to the dioxin-laden ash as the smoke billows around Guiyu, finally settling on the area. The soil surrounding these factories has been saturated with lead, chromium, tin, and other heavy metals. Discarded electronics lie in pools of toxins that leach into the groundwater, making the water undrinkable to the extent that water must be trucked in from elsewhere. Lead levels in the river sediment are double European safety levels, according to the Basel Action Network.  Lead in the blood of Guiyu's children is 54% higher on average than that of children in the nearby town of Chendian. Piles of ash and plastic waste sit on the ground beside rice paddies and dikes holding in the Lianjiang River.\n\n\n\nBen's back-of-the-napkin math\n\nConsider the Apex landfill in Las Vegas. This handles trash for the whole city, which is ~700K people. The base of the landfill is currently 9km2 , but they've hinted at expanding it in the future. So let's assume they more than double it and put it at 20km2 . The estimates are that this landfill will handle trash for ~300 years \"at current rates\". I'm not sure if that includes population growth, so let's play it safe and assume not. So how much space does each person need landfill wise for the next 300 years? We have 20km2 / 700K people = 28.5 m2 per person for 300 years. For 400M people, that's roughly 12,000 km2. The US is roughly 10,000,000 km2. That's 0.012% of the US needed for landfills for the next 300 years. We definitely have the space. \n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us fill up landfills and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat do you like to bring to your local neighbourhood tire-fire?  Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eClose your eyes, and think of a bright and pristine, clean and immaculately run recycling center, green\u0026#39;r than a giant\u0026#39;s thumb.  Now think of a dirty, ugly, rotting landfill, stinking in the mid-day sun. Of these two scenarios, which, do you reckon, is worse for the environment?  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn this episode, Ben and Vaden attempt to reduce and refute a few reused canards about recycling and refuse, by rereading Rob Wiblin\u0026#39;s excellent piece which addresses the aformentioned question: \u003ca href=\"https://medium.com/@robertwiblin/what-you-think-about-landfill-and-recycling-is-probably-totally-wrong-3a6cf57049ce\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eWhat you think about landfill and recycling is probably totally wrong\u003c/a\u003e.  Steel yourselves for this one folks, because you may need to paper over arguments with loved ones, trash old opinions, and shatter previous misconceptions.\u003cbr\u003e\nCheck out more of Rob\u0026#39;s writing \u003ca href=\"https://www.robwiblin.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe origins of recycling and some of the earliest instances\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnergy efficiency of recycling plastics, aluminium, paper, steel, and electronic waste (e-waste) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy your peanut butter jars and plastic coffee cups are not recyclable \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModern landfills and why they\u0026#39;re awesome \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow landfills can be used to create energy \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuilding stuff on top of landfills\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy we\u0026#39;re not even close to running out of space for landfills\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEconomic incentives for recycling vs top-down regulation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe modern recycling movement and its emergence in the 1990s \n\u0026gt; - Guiyu, China, where e-waste goes to die. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThat a lot of your \u0026quot;recycling\u0026quot; ends up as garbage in the Philippines \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eError Correction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden misremembered what Smil wrote regarding four categories of recycling (Metals and Aluminum / Plastics / Paper / Electronic Waste (\u0026quot;e-waste\u0026quot;)). He incorrectly quoted Smil as saying these four categories were exhaustive, and represented the four major categories recycling into which the majority of recycled material can be bucketed. This is incorrect- what Smil actually wrote was: \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI will devote the rest of this section (and of this chapter) to brief appraisals of the recycling efforts for four materials — two key metals (steel and aluminum) and plastics and paper—and of electronic waste, a category of discarded material that would most benefit from much enhanced rates of recycling. \u003cbr\u003e\n- Making the Modern World: Materials and De-materialization, Smill, p.179\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eA list of the top 9 recycled materials can be found here: \u003ca href=\"https://www.rd.com/list/most-recyclable-materials/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.rd.com/list/most-recyclable-materials/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSources / Citations\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/waste-management\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eShare of plastic waste that is recycled, landfilled, incinerated and mismanaged, 2019\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource for the claim that recycling glass is not energy efficient (and thus not necessarily better for the environment than landfilling): \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGlass bottles can be more pleasant to drink out of, but they also require more energy to manufacture and recycle. Glass bottles consume 170 to 250 percent more energy and emit 200 to 400 percent more carbon than plastic bottles, due mostly to the heat energy required in the manufacturing process. Of course, if the extra energy required by glass were produced from emissions-free sources, it wouldn’t necessarily matter that glass bottles required more energy to make and move. “If the energy is nuclear power or renewables there should be less of an environmental impact,” notes Figgener.\u003cbr\u003e\n- Apocalypse Never, Shellenburger, p.66\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCloth bags need to be \u003ca href=\"https://www.savemoneycutcarbon.com/learn-save/plastic-vs-cotton-bags-which-is-more-sustainable\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ereused 173 times\u003c/a\u003e to be more eco-friendly than a plastic bag: \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource for claim that \u003ca href=\"https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/america-e-waste-gps-tracker-tells-all-earthfix\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003emajority of e-waste ends up in China\u003c/a\u003e: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePuckett’s organization partnered with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to put 200 geolocating tracking devices inside old computers, TVs and printers. They dropped them off nationwide at donation centers, recyclers and electronic take-back programs — enterprises that advertise themselves as “green,” “sustainable,” “earth friendly” and “environmentally responsible.” ... \u003cbr\u003e\nAbout a third of the tracked electronics went overseas — some as far as 12,000 miles. That includes six of the 14 tracker-equipped electronics that Puckett’s group dropped off to be recycled in Washington and Oregon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe tracked electronics ended up in Mexico, Taiwan, China, Pakistan, Thailand, Dominican Republic, Canada and Kenya. \u003cstrong\u003eMost often, they traveled across the Pacific to rural Hong Kong.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003e(italics added.)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eNPR \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBGZtNJAt-M\u0026ab_channel=NPR\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003einterview\u003c/a\u003e on the fact that some manufacturers will put recycling logos on products that aren\u0026#39;t recyclable. \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eBloomberg \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmGrI_BVlnc\u0026ab_channel=BloombergOriginals\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003einvestigative report\u003c/a\u003e on tracking plastic to a town in Poland that burns it for energy. \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHzltu6Tvl8\u0026ab_channel=PBSTerra\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eVideo\u003c/a\u003e about the apex landfill\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eGuiyu, China. Wiki\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_in_Guiyu.\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003edescription\u003c/a\u003e: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnce a rice village, the pollution has made Guiyu unable to produce crops for food and the water of the river is undrinkable. Many of the primitive recycling operations in Guiyu are toxic and dangerous to workers\u0026#39; health with 80% of children suffering from lead poisoning. Above-average miscarriage rates are also reported in the region. Workers use their bare hands to crack open electronics to strip away any parts that can be reused—including chips and valuable metals, such as gold, silver, etc. Workers also \u0026quot;cook\u0026quot; circuit boards to remove chips and solders, burn wires and other plastics to liberate metals such as copper; use highly corrosive and dangerous acid baths along the riverbanks to extract gold from the microchips; and sweep printer toner out of cartridges. Children are exposed to the dioxin-laden ash as the smoke billows around Guiyu, finally settling on the area. The soil surrounding these factories has been saturated with lead, chromium, tin, and other heavy metals. Discarded electronics lie in pools of toxins that leach into the groundwater, making the water undrinkable to the extent that water must be trucked in from elsewhere. Lead levels in the river sediment are double European safety levels, according to the Basel Action Network.  Lead in the blood of Guiyu\u0026#39;s children is 54% higher on average than that of children in the nearby town of Chendian. Piles of ash and plastic waste sit on the ground beside rice paddies and dikes holding in the Lianjiang River.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch2\u003eBen\u0026#39;s back-of-the-napkin math\u003c/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eConsider the Apex landfill in Las Vegas. This handles trash for the whole city, which is ~700K people. The base of the landfill is currently 9km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e , but they\u0026#39;ve hinted at expanding it in the future. So let\u0026#39;s assume they more than double it and put it at 20km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e . The estimates are that this landfill will handle trash for ~300 years \u0026quot;at current rates\u0026quot;. I\u0026#39;m not sure if that includes population growth, so let\u0026#39;s play it safe and assume not. So how much space does each person need landfill wise for the next 300 years? We have 20km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e / 700K people = 28.5 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e per person for 300 years. For 400M people, that\u0026#39;s roughly 12,000 km\u003csup\u003e2.\u003c/sup\u003e The US is roughly 10,000,000 km\u003csup\u003e2.\u003c/sup\u003e That\u0026#39;s 0.012% of the US needed for landfills for the next 300 years. We definitely have the space. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us fill up landfills and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat do \u003cem\u003eyou\u003c/em\u003e like to bring to your local neighbourhood tire-fire?  Tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"A deep dive into the world of recycling! Is it clean, green, and everything that is right with the world? Or is it wasteful, inefficient, and one big pile of virtue signaling? ","date_published":"2024-02-14T10:45:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/60abb63c-a659-4774-8dcf-bca464f43e0e.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":64532299,"duration_in_seconds":4009}]},{"id":"db9bb47c-e74e-43aa-b7e6-9f3550e239ab","title":"#62 (Bonus) - The Principle of Optimism (Vaden on the Theory of Anything Podcast) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/62","content_text":"Vaden has selfishly gone on vacation with his family, leaving beloved listeners to fend for themselves in the wide world of epistemological confusion. To repair some of the damage, we're releasing an episode of The Theory of Anything Podcast from last June in which Vaden contributed to a roundtable discussion on the principle of optimism. Featuring Bruce Nielson, Peter Johansen, Sam Kuypers, Hervé Eulacia, Micah Redding, Bill Rugolsky, and Daniel Buchfink. Enjoy! \n\nFrom The Theory of Anything Podcast description: Are all evils due to a lack of knowledge? Are all interesting problems soluble? ALL the problems, really?!?! And what exactly is meant by interesting? Also, should “good guys” ignore the precautionary principle, and do they always win? What is the difference between cynicism, pessimism, and skepticism? And why is pessimism so attractive to so many humans? \n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us solve problems and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhich unsolvable problem would you most like to solve? Send your answer via quantum tunneling to incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guests: Bruce Nielson and Sam Kuypers.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eVaden has selfishly gone on vacation with his family, leaving beloved listeners to fend for themselves in the wide world of epistemological confusion. To repair some of the damage, we\u0026#39;re releasing an episode of The Theory of Anything Podcast from last June in which Vaden contributed to a roundtable discussion on the principle of optimism. Featuring Bruce Nielson, Peter Johansen, Sam Kuypers, Hervé Eulacia, Micah Redding, Bill Rugolsky, and Daniel Buchfink. Enjoy! \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom The Theory of Anything Podcast description:\u003c/strong\u003e Are all evils due to a lack of knowledge? Are all interesting problems soluble? ALL the problems, really?!?! And what exactly is meant by interesting? Also, should “good guys” ignore the precautionary principle, and do they always win? What is the difference between cynicism, pessimism, and skepticism? And why is pessimism so attractive to so many humans? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us solve problems and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhich unsolvable problem would you most like to solve? Send your answer via quantum tunneling to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guests: Bruce Nielson and Sam Kuypers.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Listen to Vaden's dulcet tones on Bruce Nielson's Theory of Anything Podcast discussing the principle of optimism. ","date_published":"2024-01-31T19:15:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/db9bb47c-e74e-43aa-b7e6-9f3550e239ab.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":54937324,"duration_in_seconds":9937}]},{"id":"e4357549-eb00-4824-8de7-822f7a647743","title":"#61 - Debating Free Will: Frankenstein's Monster and a Filmstrip of the Universe (with Lucas Smalldon)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/61","content_text":"While you're reading this you're having a thought. Something like \"wow, I love the Increments podcast\", or \"those hosts are some handsome\" or \"I really wish people would stop talking about free will.\" Do you have a choice in the matter? Are you free to choose what you're thinking in any given moment, or is it determined by your genetics, environment, and existing ideas? Is the universe determined, are we all Frankenstein's monster? How does one profitably think about that question? Today we have Lucas Smalldon on to help us think through these questions. \n\nWe reference Lucas's blog post titled reconciling-determinism-and-free-will. Because it's is barely more than a tweet, we've included the entire post here as well: \n\n\n\nReconciling Free Will with Determinism\n\nFree will and determinism seem to conflict with each other. But the apparent conflict disappears when we understand that determinism and free will simply describe the world from radically different perspectives and at fundamentally different levels. Free will makes sense only within the context of the physical world, whereas determinism makes sense only from a perspective that is outside the physical world. Consider the determinist statement, “The future exists and has always existed”. It seems like a contradiction in terms, but only because our language forces us to express the idea misleadingly in terms of the past and future. If we assign special meanings to the temporal words in the statement—namely, if by the future we mean “objectively real events that from the perspective of our present have not yet happened”; and if by always we mean “transcending time itself” rather than the usual “existing across all time”—then the contradiction resolves. Assigning these special meanings allows us to express determinism as atemporal and objective: as a description of a physical reality of which time is an attribute. Conversely, free will, which is by far the more intuitive concept, is needed to explain certain kinds of events (i.e., choices) that occur within time, and thus within the physical world that determinism describes from the outside. Determinism and free will are compatible. We really do make choices. It’s just that, from an atemporal determinist perspective, these choices have “always” existed.\n\n\n\nFollow Lucas on twitter or check out his blog. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nLevels of explanation regarding free will \nThe (in)compatibility of different levels of explanation\nWhy the lack of free will does not hinge on reductionism\nMemetic arguments for the non-existence of free will \nWhether we can have moral responsibility without free will \nThe universe as a filmstrip \nWhether we're all just Frankenstein's monster \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us find freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nHow much do you want to want Frankenstein's monster? Send your answer down the tubes and over to incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Lucas Smalldon.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWhile you\u0026#39;re reading this you\u0026#39;re having a thought. Something like \u0026quot;wow, I love the Increments podcast\u0026quot;, or \u0026quot;those hosts are some handsome\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;I really wish people would stop talking about free will.\u0026quot; Do you have a choice in the matter? Are you free to choose what you\u0026#39;re thinking in any given moment, or is it determined by your genetics, environment, and existing ideas? Is the universe determined, are we all Frankenstein\u0026#39;s monster? How does one profitably think about that question? Today we have Lucas Smalldon on to help us think through these questions. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe reference Lucas\u0026#39;s blog post titled \u003ca href=\"https://barelymorethanatweet.com/2021/01/05/reconciling-determinism-and-free-will/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ereconciling-determinism-and-free-will\u003c/a\u003e. Because it\u0026#39;s is barely more than a tweet, we\u0026#39;ve included the entire post here as well: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003chr\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReconciling Free Will with Determinism\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFree will and determinism seem to conflict with each other. But the apparent conflict disappears when we understand that determinism and free will simply describe the world from radically different perspectives and at fundamentally different levels. Free will makes sense only \u003cem\u003ewithin\u003c/em\u003e the context of the physical world, whereas determinism makes sense only from a perspective that is \u003cem\u003eoutside\u003c/em\u003e the physical world. Consider the determinist statement, “The future exists and has always existed”. It seems like a contradiction in terms, but only because our language forces us to express the idea misleadingly in terms of the past and future. If we assign special meanings to the temporal words in the statement—namely, if by \u003cem\u003ethe future\u003c/em\u003e we mean “objectively real events that from the perspective of our present have not yet happened”; and if by \u003cem\u003ealways\u003c/em\u003e we mean “transcending time itself” rather than the usual “existing across all time”—then the contradiction resolves. Assigning these special meanings allows us to express determinism as atemporal and objective: as a description of a physical reality \u003cem\u003eof which time is an attribute.\u003c/em\u003e Conversely, free will, which is by far the more intuitive concept, is needed to explain certain kinds of events (i.e., choices) that occur \u003cem\u003ewithin\u003c/em\u003e time, and thus within the physical world that determinism describes from the outside. Determinism and free will are compatible. We really do make choices. It’s just that, from an atemporal determinist perspective, these choices have “always” existed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003chr\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFollow Lucas on \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/reason_wit_me?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003etwitter\u003c/a\u003e or check out his \u003ca href=\"https://barelymorethanatweet.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eblog\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevels of explanation regarding free will \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe (in)compatibility of different levels of explanation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy the lack of free will does not hinge on reductionism\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMemetic arguments for the non-existence of free will \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether we can have moral responsibility without free will \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe universe as a filmstrip \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether we\u0026#39;re all just Frankenstein\u0026#39;s monster \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us find freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHow much do you want to want Frankenstein\u0026#39;s monster? Send your answer down the tubes and over to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Lucas Smalldon.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We have Lucas Smalldon on for a good ol' fashion free will debate. In particular, we discuss his blog post \"Reconciling Free Will with Determinism\" and try to sort of the age old question of whether or not we have the ability to make choices. ","date_published":"2024-01-17T09:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/e4357549-eb00-4824-8de7-822f7a647743.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":99082295,"duration_in_seconds":6169}]},{"id":"1c458a1d-9763-4387-9217-c1c90d50df23","title":"#60 - Creativity and Computational Universality (with Bruce Nielson) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/60","content_text":"Today we [finally] have on someone who actually knows what they're actually talking about: Mr. Bruce Nielson of the excellent Theory of Anything Podcast. We bring him on to straighten us out on the topics of creativity, machine intelligence, Turing machines, and computational universality - We build upon our previous conversation way back in Ask Us Anything I: Computation and Creativity, and suggest listening to that episode first. \n\nGo follow Bruce on twitter (https://twitter.com/bnielson01) and check out his Theory of Anything Podcast here. \n\n(Also Vaden's audio was acting up a bit in this episode, we humbly seek forgiveness.) \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nDoes theorem proving count as creativity?\nIs AlphaGo creative?\nDeterminism, predictability, and chaos theory\nEssentialism and a misunderstanding of definitions\nAnimal memes and understanding\nTuring Machines and computational universality\nPenrose's \"proof\" that we need new physics \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nAsk Us Anything I: Computation and Creativity (Listen first!)\nLogic theorist \nAlphaGo movie \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us fund more 64 minute-long blog posts and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nCreate us up an email with something imaginatively rote, cliche and formulaic, and mail that creative stinker over to incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eToday we [finally] have on someone who actually knows what they\u0026#39;re actually talking about: Mr. Bruce Nielson of the excellent Theory of Anything Podcast. We bring him on to straighten us out on the topics of creativity, machine intelligence, Turing machines, and computational universality - We build upon our previous conversation way back in \u003ca href=\"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/52\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAsk Us Anything I: Computation and Creativity\u003c/a\u003e, and suggest listening to that episode first. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eGo follow Bruce on twitter (\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/bnielson01\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://twitter.com/bnielson01\u003c/a\u003e) and check out his Theory of Anything Podcast \u003ca href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e(Also Vaden\u0026#39;s audio was acting up a bit in this episode, we humbly seek forgiveness.) \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoes theorem proving count as creativity?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs AlphaGo creative?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeterminism, predictability, and chaos theory\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEssentialism and a misunderstanding of definitions\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnimal memes and understanding\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTuring Machines and computational universality\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePenrose\u0026#39;s \u0026quot;proof\u0026quot; that we need new physics \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/52\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAsk Us Anything I: Computation and Creativity\u003c/a\u003e (Listen first!)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_Theorist\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eLogic theorist\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_(film)\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAlphaGo movie\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us fund more 64 minute-long blog posts and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eCreate us up an email with something imaginatively rote, cliche and formulaic, and mail that creative stinker over to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Bruce Nielsen makes his first appearance on the podcast to push us on machine intelligence and creativity, computational universality, Roger Penrose, and everything in between! ","date_published":"2024-01-03T22:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/1c458a1d-9763-4387-9217-c1c90d50df23.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":85473698,"duration_in_seconds":7122}]},{"id":"6363ebbf-c232-45f7-adbc-140ab1f61037","title":"#59 (C\u0026R, Chap 8) - On the Status of Science and Metaphysics (Plus reflections on the Brett Hall blog exchange) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/59","content_text":"Back to the C\u0026amp;R series baby! Feels goooooood. Need some bar-room explanations for why induction is impossible? We gotchu. Need some historical background on where your boy Isaac got his ideas? We gotchu. Need to know how to refute the irrefutable? Gotchu there too homie, because today we're diving into Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 8: On the Status of Science and Metaphysics. \n\nOh, and we also discuss, in admittedly frustrated tones, the failed blog exchange between Brett Hall and Vaden on prediction and Austrianism. If you want the full listening experience, we suggest reading both posts before hearing our kvetching:\n\n\nVaden's post \nBrett's \"response\" \n\n\nHold on to your hats for this one listeners, because she starts off rather spicy. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhy Kant believed in the truth of Newtonian mechanics \nNewton and his assertion that he arrived at his theory via induction \nWhy this isn't true and is logically impossible\nWas Copernicus influenced by Platonic ideals?\nHow Kepler came up with the idea of elliptical orbits \nWhy finite observations are always compatible with infinitely many theories \nKant's paradox and his solution \nPopper's updated solution to Kant's paradox \nThe irrefutability of philosophical theories \nHow can we say that irrefutable theories are false?\nAnnnnnd perhaps a few cheap shots here and there about Austrian Economics as well. \n# References \nSome background history on Copernicus and why Ben thinks Popper is wrong \n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nListening to this statement you may well wonder how I can possibly hold a theory to be false and irrefutable at one and the same time—I who claim to be a rationalist. For how can a rationalist say of a theory that it is false and irrefutable? Is he not bound, as a rationalist, to refute a theory before he asserts that it is false? And conversely, is he not bound to admit that if a theory is irrefutable, it is true?\n\nNow if we look upon a theory as a proposed solution to a set of problems, then the theory immediately lends itself to critical discussion—even if it is non-empirical and irrefutable. For we can now ask questions such as, Does it solve the problem? Does it solve it better than other theories? Has it perhaps merely shifted the problem? Is the solution simple? Is it fruitful? Does it perhaps contradict other philosophical theories needed for solving other problems?\n\nBecause, as you [Kant] said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes con- sciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. These ideas, it is true, are produced by us, and not by the world around us; they are not merely the traces of repeated sensations or stimuli or what not; here you were right. But we are more active and free than even you believed; for similar observations or similar environmental situations do not, as your theory implied, produce similar explanations in different men. Nor is the fact that we create our theories, and that we attempt to impose them upon the world, an explanation of their success, as you believed. For the overwhelming majority of our theories, of our freely invented ideas, are unsuccessful; they do not stand up to searching tests, and are discarded as falsified by experience. Only a very few of them succeed, for a time, in the competitive struggle for survival.\n\\ \nC\u0026amp;R Chapter 2\n\nSocials\n\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us fund more hour-long blog posts and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover anger management here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWould you rather be wrong or boring? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBack to the C\u0026amp;R series baby! Feels goooooood. Need some bar-room explanations for why induction is impossible? We gotchu. Need some historical background on where your boy Isaac got his ideas? We gotchu. Need to know how to refute the irrefutable? Gotchu there too homie, because today we\u0026#39;re diving into Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 8: On the Status of Science and Metaphysics. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eOh, and we also discuss, in admittedly frustrated tones, the failed blog exchange between Brett Hall and Vaden on prediction and Austrianism. If you want the full listening experience, we suggest reading both posts before hearing our kvetching:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/predicting-human-behaviour/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s post\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.bretthall.org/blog/humans-are-creative\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eBrett\u0026#39;s \u0026quot;response\u0026quot;\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHold on to your hats for this one listeners, because she starts off rather spicy. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy Kant believed in the truth of Newtonian mechanics \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewton and his assertion that he arrived at his theory via induction \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy this isn\u0026#39;t true and is logically impossible\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWas Copernicus influenced by Platonic ideals?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow Kepler came up with the idea of elliptical orbits \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy finite observations are always compatible with infinitely many theories \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKant\u0026#39;s paradox and his solution \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopper\u0026#39;s updated solution to Kant\u0026#39;s paradox \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe irrefutability of philosophical theories \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow can we say that irrefutable theories are false?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnnnnnd perhaps a few cheap shots here and there about Austrian Economics as well. \n# References \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSome \u003ca href=\"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/notes.html#note-6\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ebackground history\u003c/a\u003e on Copernicus and why Ben thinks Popper is wrong \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eListening to this statement you may well wonder how I can possibly hold a theory to be false and irrefutable at one and the same time—I who claim to be a rationalist. For how can a rationalist say of a theory that it is false and irrefutable? Is he not bound, as a rationalist, to refute a theory before he asserts that it is false? And conversely, is he not bound to admit that if a theory is irrefutable, it is true?\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eNow if we look upon a theory as a proposed solution to a set of problems, then the theory immediately lends itself to critical discussion—even if it is non-empirical and irrefutable. For we can now ask questions such as, Does it solve the problem? Does it solve it better than other theories? Has it perhaps merely shifted the problem? Is the solution simple? Is it fruitful? Does it perhaps contradict other philosophical theories needed for solving other problems?\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBecause, as you [Kant] said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes con- sciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. These ideas, it is true, are produced by us, and not by the world around us; they are not merely the traces of repeated sensations or stimuli or what not; here you were right. But we are more active and free than even you believed; for similar observations or similar environmental situations do not, as your theory implied, produce similar explanations in different men. Nor is the fact that we create our theories, and that we attempt to impose them upon the world, an explanation of their success, as you believed. For the overwhelming majority of our theories, of our freely invented ideas, are unsuccessful; they do not stand up to searching tests, and are discarded as falsified by experience. Only a very few of them succeed, for a time, in the competitive struggle for survival.\u003cbr\u003e\n\\ \u003cbr\u003e\nC\u0026amp;R Chapter 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us fund more hour-long blog posts and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover anger management \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWould you rather be wrong or boring? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Chapter 8 of conjectures and refutations! Back on the horse baby, talkin' bout Kant, induction, irrefutability, induction - all the good stuff. Oh, and also Vaden's failed blog exchange w/ Brett Hall","date_published":"2023-12-22T12:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6363ebbf-c232-45f7-adbc-140ab1f61037.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":82956119,"duration_in_seconds":5184}]},{"id":"3a8fead7-5245-4579-9da9-b01ab43ad972","title":"#58 - Ask Us Anything V: How to Read and What to Read","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/58","content_text":"Alright people, we made it. Six months, a few breaks, some uncontrollable laughter, some philosophy, many unhinged takes, a little bit of diarrhea and we're here, the last Ask Us Anything. After this we're never answering another God D*** question. Ever.  \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nDo you wish you could change your own interests? \nMethods of information ingestion \nTaking books off their pedestal bit \nIntellectual influences\nVeganism (why Ben is, why Vaden isn't) \nAnti-rational memes \nFricken Andrew Huberman again \nStoicism \nAre e-fuels the best of the best or the worst of the worst?\n\n\nQuestions\n\n\n(Andrew) Any suggested methods of reading Popper (or others) and getting the most out of it? I'm not from a philosophy background, and although I get a lot out of the books, I think there's probably ways of reading them (notes etc?) where I could invest the same time and get more return.\n(Andrew) Any other books you'd say added to your personal philosophical development as DD, KP have? Who and why?\n(Alex) Are you aware of general types of insidious anti-rational memes which are hard to recognise as such? Any ideas on how we can go about recognising them in our own thinking? (I do realise that perhaps no general method exists, but still, if you have any thoughts on this...)\n(Lorcan) What do you think about efuels? Listen to this take by Fully Charged. \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nLying and Free Will by Sam Harris \nDoing Good Better by MacAskill \nAnimal Liberation by Peter Singer \nMortal Questions by Thomas Nagel \nDeath and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs \nPeace is Every Step and True Love by Thich Nhat Hanh \nSeeing like a State by James Scott \nThe Truth Behind Cage-Free and Free-Range | STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW\n\n\nPeople\n\nProducers of rational memes:\n\n\nEverything: Christopher Hitchens, Vladimir Nabokov, Sam Harris, George Orwell, Scott Alexander, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Steven Pinker \nSex and Relationships: Dan Savage\nEnvironment/Progress: Vaclav Smil, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling, Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Shellenburger, Alex Epstein\nRace: Glenn Loury, John Mcwhorter, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster, Chloe Valdery\nWoke:  John Mcwhorter, Yasha Mounk, Coleman Hughes, Sam Harris, Douglas Murrey, Jordan Peterson, Steven Hicks, James Lindsay, Ben Shapiro\nFeminism: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christina Hoff Summers, Camille Paglia\n(Note: Then follow each thinker's favorite thinker, and never stop. ) \n\n\nProducers of anti-rational memes:\n\n\nEric Weinstein\nBret Weinstein\nNoam Chomsky (See A Potpourri Of Chomskyan Nonsense: https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/001592/v6.pdf)\nGlenn Greenwald\nReza Aslan\nMedhi Hassan\nRobin Diangelo\nIbraam x Kendi\nGeorge Galloway\nJudith Butler\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us fund the anti-book campaign and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help therapy costs here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat aren't you interested in, and how might you fix that? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eAlright people, we made it. Six months, a few breaks, some uncontrollable laughter, some philosophy, many unhinged takes, a little bit of diarrhea and we\u0026#39;re here, the last Ask Us Anything. After this we\u0026#39;re never answering another God D*** question. Ever.  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDo you wish you could change your own interests? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMethods of information ingestion \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaking books off their pedestal bit \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIntellectual influences\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVeganism (why Ben is, why Vaden isn\u0026#39;t) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnti-rational memes \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFricken Andrew Huberman again \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStoicism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAre e-fuels the best of the best or the worst of the worst?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuestions\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Andrew) Any suggested methods of reading Popper (or others) and getting the most out of it? I\u0026#39;m not from a philosophy background, and although I get a lot out of the books, I think there\u0026#39;s probably ways of reading them (notes etc?) where I could invest the same time and get more return.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Andrew) Any other books you\u0026#39;d say added to your personal philosophical development as DD, KP have? Who and why?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Alex) Are you aware of general types of insidious anti-rational memes which are hard to recognise as such? Any ideas on how we can go about recognising them in our own thinking? (I do realise that perhaps no general method exists, but still, if you have any thoughts on this...)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Lorcan) What do you think about efuels? Listen to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egTCIyNBpQw\u0026ab_channel=FullyChargedShow\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ethis take\u003c/a\u003e by Fully Charged. \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.samharris.org/books/lying\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eLying\u003c/a\u003e and \u003ca href=\"https://www.samharris.org/books/free-will\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eFree Will\u003c/a\u003e by Sam Harris \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Doing-Good-Better-Effective-Altruism/dp/1592409660\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDoing Good Better\u003c/a\u003e by MacAskill \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAnimal Liberation\u003c/a\u003e by Peter Singer \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Mortal-Questions-Thomas-Nagel/dp/1107604710#:%7E:text=Thomas%20Nagel\u0026#x27;s%20Mortal%20Questions%20explore,%2C%20consciousness%2C%20freedom%20and%20value.\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMortal Questions\u003c/a\u003e by Thomas Nagel \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDeath and Life of Great American Cities\u003c/a\u003e by Jane Jacobs \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Peace-Every-Step-Mindfulness-Everyday/dp/0553351397\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ePeace is Every Step\u003c/a\u003e and \u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/True-Love-Practice-Awakening-Heart/dp/1590304047\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eTrue Love\u003c/a\u003e by Thich Nhat Hanh \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State#:%7E:text=Seeing%20Like%20a%20State%3A%20How,accordance%20with%20purported%20scientific%20laws.\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eSeeing like a State\u003c/a\u003e by James Scott \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foHv_MCBveA\u0026ab_channel=StuffYouShouldKnow\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Truth Behind Cage-Free and Free-Range | STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003ePeople\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProducers of rational memes:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEverything: Christopher Hitchens, Vladimir Nabokov, Sam Harris, George Orwell, Scott Alexander, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Steven Pinker \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSex and Relationships: Dan Savage\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnvironment/Progress: Vaclav Smil, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling, Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Shellenburger, Alex Epstein\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRace: Glenn Loury, John Mcwhorter, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster, Chloe Valdery\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoke:  John Mcwhorter, Yasha Mounk, Coleman Hughes, Sam Harris, Douglas Murrey, Jordan Peterson, Steven Hicks, James Lindsay, Ben Shapiro\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeminism: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christina Hoff Summers, Camille Paglia\n(Note: Then follow each thinker\u0026#39;s favorite thinker, and never stop. ) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProducers of anti-rational memes:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEric Weinstein\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBret Weinstein\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoam Chomsky (See A Potpourri Of Chomskyan Nonsense: \u003ca href=\"https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/001592/v6.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/001592/v6.pdf\u003c/a\u003e)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlenn Greenwald\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReza Aslan\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMedhi Hassan\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobin Diangelo\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIbraam x Kendi\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeorge Galloway\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJudith Butler\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us fund the anti-book campaign and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help therapy costs \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat aren\u0026#39;t you interested in, and how might you fix that? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"In this episode we finally conclude our AUA series. We cover subjects like \"how to read and learn more effectively\", \"can you change your own interests\", \"which books/authors have influenced you the most\", veganism, rational/anti-rational memes, stoicism, and e-fuels. ","date_published":"2023-11-29T04:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/3a8fead7-5245-4579-9da9-b01ab43ad972.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":96525582,"duration_in_seconds":6032}]},{"id":"a50a749a-e1a5-428f-8fc6-777b91efd289","title":"#57 (Bonus) - A calm and soothing discussion of The Patriarchy","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/57","content_text":"We we're looking for a nice light topic for our patron only episode, so Vaden naturally chosen to chat about the patriarchy. I guess he didn't get into enough trouble in his personal life talking about it so he wanted to make his support and admiration for the patriarchy public. \n\nThis is a sneak preview into the land of patreon bonus episodes, so be sure to fork over some cold hard cash if you'd like a bit more mansplaining in your life. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nHarassment of women in various spheres of life \nThe patriarchy as a set of facts versus a causal explanation\nWhy conflating these two notions of the patriarchy harms progress \nDomains where women are doing better than men (hint: education, mental health, and psychopathy) \nWhy it's so hard to talk about this \nWhy Canada is different than Afghanistan (OR IS IT) \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us pay for men's rights posters and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help with upholding the patriarchy here. \nClick dem like buttons on youtube over hur.\n\n\nWho is a better meninist? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe we\u0026#39;re looking for a nice light topic for our patron only episode, so Vaden naturally chosen to chat about the patriarchy. I guess he didn\u0026#39;t get into enough trouble in his personal life talking about it so he wanted to make his support and admiration for the patriarchy public. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis is a sneak preview into the land of patreon bonus episodes, so be sure to fork over some cold hard cash if you\u0026#39;d like a bit more mansplaining in your life. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarassment of women in various spheres of life \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe patriarchy as a set of facts versus a causal explanation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy conflating these two notions of the patriarchy harms progress \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDomains where women are doing better than men (hint: education, mental health, and psychopathy) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy it\u0026#39;s so hard to talk about this \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy Canada is different than Afghanistan (OR IS IT) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us pay for men\u0026#39;s rights posters and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help with upholding the patriarchy \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube over hur\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWho is a better meninist? Tell us at \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"A sneak preview into what is usually reserved for our patrons! We talk patriachy as causal explanation vs patriarchy as description. Let's get spicy ","date_published":"2023-11-15T07:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/a50a749a-e1a5-428f-8fc6-777b91efd289.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":59030464,"duration_in_seconds":3689}]},{"id":"d4e62324-29eb-46bd-99c1-d97f3b2ae8b7","title":"#56 - Ask Us Anything IV: Certainty, Emergence, and Popperian Imperatives","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/56","content_text":"Perhaps you thought, in your infinite ignorance, that the release of the previous episode marked the end of the age of the AMA! But nay my friends, the age of the AMA has just begun! We'll answer your questions until the cows come home; until Godot arrives; until all the world's babies are potty-trained. Or, at least, until we stop laughing. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nPotty training, taking babies seriously, and adult diapers \nWhy Vaden never daydreams, fantasizes, or minds spending 10 hours in a car\nWhether the subjective notions of certainty, belief, or confidence deserve a spot in the objective world of epistemology \nWhether sports are authoritarian \nWhether spreading Popper's epistemology is a moral imperative \nThe role of school and educational institutions \nWhether emergence is the result of the interplay between physical reality and the reality of abstraction\n\n\nQuestions\n\n\n(Tom) Can any thinking take place completely independent of any certainty (explicitly acknowledged or inexplicit) whatsoever? Or can we introduce alternative terms to 'certainty' and 'confidence' to describe how individuals process their convictions, consent, and agreement? If 'certainty' and 'confidence' connote justificationism, can a fallibilist dismiss these terms entirely?\n(Tom) Can fallibilism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-justificationism, and critical rationalism overall operate effectively in the highly competitive space of sports, especially professional sports? \n(Andrew) If our best theory of how to make rapid progress comes from Popper's epistemology, should making it more widely known/understood be considered a moral imperative? If not, why? If so, thoughts? \n(Andrew) This one has been hanging about in my notes for a couple of years so I'm not sure it's a great question any more, but something zingy about the interplay between reality, abstractions and their effects on each other has pushed me to add it here: Is emergence the result of the interplay between physical reality and the reality of abstractions?\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us pay for diapers and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help with Diarrhea removal here). \nClick dem like buttons on youtube over hur.\n\n\nWho is more annoying in the mornings? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"\u003cp\u003ePerhaps you thought, in your infinite ignorance, that the release of the previous episode marked the end of the age of the AMA! But nay my friends, the age of the AMA has just begun! We\u0026#39;ll answer your questions until the cows come home; until Godot arrives; until all the world\u0026#39;s babies are potty-trained. Or, at least, until we stop laughing. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eWe discuss\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePotty training, taking babies seriously, and adult diapers \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy Vaden never daydreams, fantasizes, or minds spending 10 hours in a car\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether the subjective notions of certainty, belief, or confidence deserve a spot in the objective world of epistemology \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether sports are authoritarian \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether spreading Popper\u0026#39;s epistemology is a moral imperative \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe role of school and educational institutions \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether emergence is the result of the interplay between physical reality and the reality of abstraction\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuestions\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Tom) Can any thinking take place completely independent of any certainty (explicitly acknowledged or inexplicit) whatsoever? Or can we introduce alternative terms to \u0026#39;certainty\u0026#39; and \u0026#39;confidence\u0026#39; to describe how individuals process their convictions, consent, and agreement? If \u0026#39;certainty\u0026#39; and \u0026#39;confidence\u0026#39; connote justificationism, can a fallibilist dismiss these terms entirely?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Tom) Can fallibilism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-justificationism, and critical rationalism overall operate effectively in the highly competitive space of sports, especially professional sports? \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Andrew) If our best theory of how to make rapid progress comes from Popper\u0026#39;s epistemology, should making it more widely known/understood be considered a moral imperative? If not, why? If so, thoughts? \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Andrew) This one has been hanging about in my notes for a couple of years so I\u0026#39;m not sure it\u0026#39;s a great question any more, but something zingy about the interplay between reality, abstractions and their effects on each other has pushed me to add it here: Is emergence the result of the interplay between physical reality and the reality of abstractions?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelp us pay for diapers and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. Or give us one-time cash donations to help with Diarrhea removal \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClick dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube over hur\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWho is more annoying in the mornings? Tell us at \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Perhaps you thought, in your infinite ignorance, that the release of the previous episode marked the end of the age of the AMA! But nay: the age of the AMA has just begun!","date_published":"2023-11-01T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/d4e62324-29eb-46bd-99c1-d97f3b2ae8b7.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":78287515,"duration_in_seconds":4892}]},{"id":"c5cbb89f-530a-45dc-a83a-7b1bf87df4a9","title":"#55 - Is all thought problem-solving? ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/55","content_text":"Our argument at the end of last episode spilled over into discord, DMs, and world news, so we felt compelled to dedicate a full episode to addressing the question \"Is all thought problem solving?\" Some arguments make history, like whether atomic bombs were required in WWII, whether all philosophy is simply a language game, and whether the chicken did indeed come before the egg. Will this be one of them? \n\nWe cover: \n\n\nHow Vaden listens to podcasts and why he thinks Andrew Huberman sucks (but studies show that Andrew Huberman is great!) \nPopper's evolutionary take on problem-solving \nProblems defined as \"disappointed expectations\"\nWhether all volitional thought is problem-solving \nAre irrefutable theories ever valuable, or should they all be discarded a-priori? \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nAll life is problem-solving\nIn Search of a Better World\nEpisode 51 of Increments, where we discuss \"implicit definitions\". \n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nMen, animals, plants, even unicellular organisms are constantly active. They are trying to improve their situation, or at least to avoid its deterioration. Even when asleep, the organism is actively maintaining the state of sleep: the depth (or else the shallowness) of sleep is a condition actively created by the organism, which sustains sleep (or else keeps the organism on the alert). Every organism is constantly preoccupied with the task of solving prob- lems. These problems arise from its own assessments of its condition and of its environment; conditions which the organism seeks to improve.\n\n\nIn Search Of A Better World, p.vii\n\n\nAt bottom, this procedure seems to be the only logical one. It is also the procedure that a lower organism, even a single-cell amoeba, uses when trying to solve a problem. In this case we speak of testing movements through which the organism tries to rid itself of a troublesome problem. Higher organisms are able to learn through trial and error how a certain problem should be solved. We may say that they too make testing movements - mental testings - and that to learn is essentially to tryout one testing movement after another until one is found that solves the problem. We might compare the animal's successful solution to an expectation and hence to a hypothesis or a theory. For the animal's behaviour shows us that it expects (perhaps unconsciously or dispositionally) that in a similar case the same testing movements will again solve the problem in question.\n\nThe behaviour of animals, and of plants too, shows that organisms are geared to laws or regularities. They expect laws or regularities in their surroundings, and I conjecture that most of these expectations are genetically determined - which is to say that they are innate.\n\n\nAll Life is Problem Solving, p.3\n\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nSolve all our problems and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here\nToss us some coin over hur (patreon subscription approach or the ko-fi, the \"just give us cash you animals\" approach), and click dem like buttons on youtube over hur.\n\n\nDo studies show that Ben or Vaden is correct? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eOur argument at the end of last episode spilled over into discord, DMs, and world news, so we felt compelled to dedicate a full episode to addressing the question \u0026quot;Is all thought problem solving?\u0026quot; Some arguments make history, like whether atomic bombs were required in WWII, whether all philosophy is simply a language game, and whether the chicken did indeed come before the egg. Will this be one of them? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe cover: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow Vaden listens to podcasts and why he thinks Andrew Huberman sucks (but studies show that Andrew Huberman is great!) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopper\u0026#39;s evolutionary take on problem-solving \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProblems defined as \u0026quot;disappointed expectations\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether all \u003cem\u003evolitional\u003c/em\u003e thought is problem-solving \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAre irrefutable theories ever valuable, or should they all be discarded a-priori? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Life-Problem-Solving-Karl-Popper/dp/0415249929\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAll life is problem-solving\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Search-Better-World-Lectures-Essays/dp/0415135486\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIn Search of a Better World\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/51\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEpisode 51 of Increments\u003c/a\u003e, where we discuss \u0026quot;implicit definitions\u0026quot;. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMen, animals, plants, even unicellular organisms are constantly active. They are trying to improve their situation, or at least to avoid its deterioration. Even when asleep, the organism is actively maintaining the state of sleep: the depth (or else the shallowness) of sleep is a condition actively created by the organism, which sustains sleep (or else keeps the organism on the alert). Every organism is constantly preoccupied with the task of solving prob- lems. These problems arise from its own assessments of its condition and of its environment; conditions which the organism seeks to improve.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIn Search Of A Better World, p.vii\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAt bottom, this procedure seems to be the only logical one. It is also the procedure that a lower organism, even a single-cell amoeba, uses when trying to solve a problem. In this case we speak of testing movements through which the organism tries to rid itself of a troublesome problem. Higher organisms are able to learn through trial and error how a certain problem should be solved. We may say that they too make testing movements - mental testings - and that to learn is essentially to tryout one testing movement after another until one is found that solves the problem. We might compare the animal\u0026#39;s successful solution to an expectation and hence to a hypothesis or a theory. For the animal\u0026#39;s behaviour shows us that it expects (perhaps unconsciously or dispositionally) that in a similar case the same testing movements will again solve the problem in question.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe behaviour of animals, and of plants too, shows that organisms are geared to laws or regularities. They expect laws or regularities in their surroundings, and I conjecture that most of these expectations are genetically determined - which is to say that they are innate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAll Life is Problem Solving, p.3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSolve all our problems and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToss us some coin over hur (\u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments/posts\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epatreon subscription approach\u003c/a\u003e or the \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eko-fi, the \u0026quot;just give us cash you animals\u0026quot; approach\u003c/a\u003e), and click dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube over hur\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDo studies show that Ben or Vaden is correct? Tell us at \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We return to the argument from last episode: Is all thought problem-solving? This epic showdown might catalyze the next world war, listen accordingly. ","date_published":"2023-10-09T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/c5cbb89f-530a-45dc-a83a-7b1bf87df4a9.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":51986598,"duration_in_seconds":3249}]},{"id":"d8df9bc8-2935-4592-b1b3-db3aea025b55","title":"#54 - Ask Us Anything III: Emotional Epistemology","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/54","content_text":"Back again with AUA #3 - we're getting there people! Only, uhh, seven questions to go? Incremental progress baby. Plus, we see a good old Vaden and Ben fight in this one! Thank God, because things were getting a little stale with Vaden hammering on longtermism and Ben on cliodynamics. We cover: \n\n\nIs hypnosis a real thing?\nTypes of universality contained within the genetic code \nPressures associated with turning political/philosophical ideas into personal identities \nHow do emotions/feelings interface with our rational/logical mind? How should they? \nVaden's (hopefully one-off) experience with Bipolar Type-1 and psychosis\nIs problem solving the sole purpose of thinking? Vaden says yes (with many caveats!) and Ben says wtf no you fool. Then we argue about how to watch TV.\n\n\nQuestions\n\n\n(Neil Hudson) Are there any theories as to the type of universality achievable via the genetic code (in BOI it is presumed to fall short of coding for all possible life forms)?\n(Neil Hudson) Wd be gd to get your take on: riffing on the Sperber/Mercier social thesis v. individual, if one is scarce private space/time then the need to constantly avow one’s public identity may “swamp” the critical evaluation of arguments one hears? Goes to seeking truth v status\n(Arun Kannan) What are your thoughts on inexplicit knowledge (David Deutsch jargon) and more broadly emotions/feelings in the mind ? How do these interplay with explicit ideas / thoughts ? What should we prioritize ? If we don't prioritize one over the other, how to resolve conflicts between them ? Any tips, literature, Popperian wisdom you can share on this ?\n(Tom Nassis) Is the sole purpose of all forms of thinking problem-solving? Or can thinking have purposes other than solving a problem?\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nReach always has an explanation. But this time, to the best of my knowledge, the explanation is not yet known. If the reason for the jump in reach was that it was a jump to universality, what was the universality? The genetic code is presumably not universal for specifying life forms, since it relies on specific types of chemicals, such as proteins. Could it be a universal constructor? Perhaps. It does manage to build with inorganic materials sometimes, such as the calcium phosphate in bones, or the magnetite in the navigation system inside a pigeon’s brain. Biotechnologists are already using it to manufacture hydrogen and to extract uranium from seawater. It can also program organisms to perform constructions outside their bodies: birds build nests; beavers build dams. Perhaps it would it be possible to specify, in the genetic code, an organism whose life cycle includes building a nuclear-powered spaceship. Or perhaps not. I guess it has some lesser, and not yet understood, universality.\n\nIn 1994 the computer scientist and molecular biologist Leonard Adleman designed and built a computer composed of DNA together with some simple enzymes, and demonstrated that it was capable of performing some sophisticated computations. At the time, Adleman’s DNA computer was arguably the fastest computer in the world. Further, it was clear that a universal classical computer could be made in a similar way. Hence we know that, whatever that other universality of the DNA system was, the universality of computation had also been inherent in it for billions of years, without ever being used – until Adleman used it.\n\nBeginning of Infinity, p.158 (emph added) \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nDerren brown makes people forget their stop\nBari Weiss's conversation with Freddie deBoer on psychosis, bipolar, and mental health. This conversation addresses the New York Times article which views having schizophrenia, bipolar, etc as no better or worse than not having schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. Also contains Vaden's favorite euphemism of 2022: \"Nonconsensus Realities\"\nSad existentialist cat\n\n\nSend Vaden an email with a thought you have not designed to solve a problem at incrementspodcast.com \n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nToss us some coin over hur (patreon subscription approach or the ko-fi, just give us cash you animal approach), and click dem like buttons on youtube over hur. \n","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBack again with AUA #3 - we\u0026#39;re getting there people! Only, uhh, seven questions to go? Incremental progress baby. Plus, we see a good old Vaden and Ben fight in this one! Thank God, because things were getting a little stale with Vaden hammering on longtermism and Ben on cliodynamics. We cover: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs hypnosis a real thing?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTypes of universality contained within the genetic code \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePressures associated with turning political/philosophical ideas into personal identities \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow do emotions/feelings interface with our rational/logical mind? How \u003cem\u003eshould\u003c/em\u003e they? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden\u0026#39;s (hopefully one-off) experience with Bipolar Type-1 and psychosis\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs problem solving the sole purpose of thinking? Vaden says yes (with many caveats!) and Ben says wtf no you fool. Then we argue about how to watch TV.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuestions\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Neil Hudson)\u003c/strong\u003e Are there any theories as to the type of universality achievable via the genetic code (in BOI it is presumed to fall short of coding for all possible life forms)?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Neil Hudson)\u003c/strong\u003e Wd be gd to get your take on: riffing on the Sperber/Mercier social thesis v. individual, if one is scarce private space/time then the need to constantly avow one’s public identity may “swamp” the critical evaluation of arguments one hears? Goes to seeking truth v status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Arun Kannan)\u003c/strong\u003e What are your thoughts on inexplicit knowledge (David Deutsch jargon) and more broadly emotions/feelings in the mind ? How do these interplay with explicit ideas / thoughts ? What should we prioritize ? If we don\u0026#39;t prioritize one over the other, how to resolve conflicts between them ? Any tips, literature, Popperian wisdom you can share on this ?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Tom Nassis)\u003c/strong\u003e Is the sole purpose of all forms of thinking problem-solving? Or can thinking have purposes other than solving a problem?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eQuotes\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eReach always has an explanation. But this time, to the best of my knowledge, the explanation is not yet known. If the reason for the jump in reach was that it was a jump to universality, what was the universality? The genetic code is presumably not universal \u003cstrong\u003efor specifying life forms\u003c/strong\u003e, since it relies on specific types of chemicals, such as proteins. Could it be a universal constructor? Perhaps. It does manage to build with inorganic materials sometimes, such as the calcium phosphate in bones, or the magnetite in the navigation system inside a pigeon’s brain. Biotechnologists are already using it to manufacture hydrogen and to extract uranium from seawater. It can also program organisms to perform constructions outside their bodies: birds build nests; beavers build dams. \u003cstrong\u003ePerhaps it would it be possible to specify, in the genetic code, an organism whose life cycle includes building a nuclear-powered spaceship. Or perhaps not. I guess it has some lesser, and not yet understood, universality.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn 1994 the computer scientist and molecular biologist Leonard Adleman designed and built a computer composed of DNA together with some simple enzymes, and demonstrated that it was capable of performing some sophisticated computations. At the time, Adleman’s DNA computer was arguably the fastest computer in the world. Further, it was clear that a universal classical computer could be made in a similar way. \u003cstrong\u003eHence we know that, whatever that other universality of the DNA system was, the universality of computation had also been inherent in it for billions of years, without ever being used – until Adleman used it.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBeginning of Infinity, p.158 (emph added) \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eReferences\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kSq7dPlw0A\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDerren brown makes people forget their stop\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBari Weiss\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://open.spotify.com/episode/2WvW8VnfzwIM155NcFXwe5\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003econversation\u003c/a\u003e with Freddie deBoer on psychosis, bipolar, and mental health. This conversation addresses the New York Times \u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/magazine/antipsychotic-medications-mental-health.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003earticle\u003c/a\u003e which views having schizophrenia, bipolar, etc as no better or worse than not having schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. Also contains Vaden\u0026#39;s favorite euphemism of 2022: \u0026quot;Nonconsensus Realities\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBjU3Ii7lfs\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eSad existentialist cat\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSend Vaden an email with a thought you have not designed to solve a problem at incrementspodcast.com \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eSocials\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToss us some coin over hur (\u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments/posts\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epatreon subscription approach\u003c/a\u003e or the \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eko-fi, just give us cash you animal approach\u003c/a\u003e), and click dem like buttons on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube over hur\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","summary":"The third of infinite installments in our ask us anything series. We touch on universality, emotions, epistemology, and whether all thinking is problem solving. ","date_published":"2023-09-18T12:30:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/d8df9bc8-2935-4592-b1b3-db3aea025b55.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":75308720,"duration_in_seconds":4706}]},{"id":"1ffe1058-61dd-4c4d-8d9e-383a97549241","title":"#53 - Ask Us Anything II: Disagreements and Decisions","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/53","content_text":"Ask us anything? Ask us everything! Back at it again with AUA Part 2/N. We wax poetic and wane dramatic on a number of subjects, including:\n\n\nBen's dark and despicable hidden historicist tendencies\nExpounding upon (one of our many) critiques of Bayesian Epistemology\nBen's total abandonment of all of his principles\nSimilarities and differences between human and computer decision making\nWhat can the critical rationalist community learn from Effective Altruism?\nBen's new best friend Peter Turchin\nHow to have effective disagreements and not take gleeful petty jabs at friends and co-hosts.\n\n\nQuestions\n\n\n(Michael) A critique of Bayesian epistemology is that it \"assigns scalars to feelings\" in an ungrounded way. It's not clear to me that the problem-solving approach of Deutsch and Popper avoid this, because even during the conjecture-refutation process, the person needs to at some point decide whether the current problem has been solved satisfactorily enough to move on to the next problem. How is this satisfaction determined, if not via summarizing one's internal belief as a scalar that surpasses some threshold? If not this (which is essentially assigning scalars to feelings), by what mechanism is a problem determined to be solved?\n(Michael) Is the claim that \"humans create new choices whereas machines are constrained to choose within the event-space defined by the human\" equivalent to saying \"humans can perform abstraction while machines cannot?\" Not clear what \"create new choices\" means, given that humans are also constrained in their vocabulary (and thus their event-space of possible thoughts)\n(Lulie) In what ways could the critical rationalist culture improve by looking to EA?\n(Scott) What principles do the @IncrementsPod duo apply to navigating effective conversations involving deep disagreement?\n(Scott) Are there any contexts where bayesianism has utility? (steelman)\n(Scott) What is Vaden going to do post graduation?\n\n\nQuotes \n\n\n“The words or the language, as they are written or spoken,” he wrote, “do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be ‘voluntarily’ reproduced and combined...this combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought— before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others.” (Einstein) \n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nSend Ben an email asking him why god why over at incrementspodcast.com","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eAsk us anything? Ask us everything! Back at it again with AUA Part 2/N. We wax poetic and wane dramatic on a number of subjects, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026#39;s dark and despicable hidden historicist tendencies\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExpounding upon (one of our many) critiques of Bayesian Epistemology\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026#39;s total abandonment of all of his principles\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimilarities and differences between human and computer decision making\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat can the critical rationalist community learn from Effective Altruism?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026#39;s new best friend Peter Turchin\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow to have effective disagreements and not take gleeful petty jabs at friends and co-hosts.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuestions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eMichael\u003c/strong\u003e) A critique of Bayesian epistemology is that it \u0026quot;assigns scalars to feelings\u0026quot; in an ungrounded way. It\u0026#39;s not clear to me that the problem-solving approach of Deutsch and Popper avoid this, because even during the conjecture-refutation process, the person needs to at some point decide whether the current problem has been solved satisfactorily enough to move on to the next problem. How is this satisfaction determined, if not via summarizing one\u0026#39;s internal belief as a scalar that surpasses some threshold? If not this (which is essentially assigning scalars to feelings), by what mechanism is a problem determined to be solved?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eMichael\u003c/strong\u003e) Is the claim that \u0026quot;humans create new choices whereas machines are constrained to choose within the event-space defined by the human\u0026quot; equivalent to saying \u0026quot;humans can perform abstraction while machines cannot?\u0026quot; Not clear what \u0026quot;create new choices\u0026quot; means, given that humans are also constrained in their vocabulary (and thus their event-space of possible thoughts)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eLulie\u003c/strong\u003e) In what ways could the critical rationalist culture improve by looking to EA?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eScott\u003c/strong\u003e) What principles do the @IncrementsPod duo apply to navigating effective conversations involving deep disagreement?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eScott\u003c/strong\u003e) Are there any contexts where bayesianism has utility? (steelman)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eScott\u003c/strong\u003e) What is Vaden going to do post graduation?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“The words or the language, as they are written or spoken,” he wrote, “do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be ‘voluntarily’ reproduced and combined...this combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought— before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others.” (Einstein) \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSend Ben an email asking him why god why over at incrementspodcast.com\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Ask us anything? Ask us everything! Back at it again with AUA Part 2/N. We wax poetic and wane dramatic on disagreements, decision-making, EA, and probability","date_published":"2023-08-14T11:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/1ffe1058-61dd-4c4d-8d9e-383a97549241.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":90414601,"duration_in_seconds":5650}]},{"id":"e60dc6c5-1d0a-4061-85b0-e97bcb4b060f","title":"#52 - Ask Us Anything I: Computation and Creativity","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/52","content_text":"We debated calling this episode \"An ode to Michael,\" because we set out to do an AMA but only get through his first two questions. But never fear, there are only 20 questions, so at this rate we should be done the AMA by the end of 2024. Who said we weren't fans of longtermism? \n\nQuestions:\n\n\nHey do you guys have a Patreon page or anyway to support you?\n(Michael) Not clear that humans are universal explainers. Standard argument for this is \"to assume o.w. is to appeal to the supernatural,\" but this argument is weak b/c it does not explain why humans could in principle explain everything. But all Deutch's ideas rests on this axiom. It's almost tautological - there could be things humans cannot explain, but we wouldn't even know about these things b/c we wouldn't be able to explain them. I think this argument that humans are universal explainers and thus can achieve indefinite progress needs more rigor.It might be a step jump from animals to humans, but why could there not be more step jumps in intelligence beyond human intelligence that we do not even know about? I'd love to get your thoughts on this.\n(Michael) Another pt I'd love to get your perspectives on is the idea of the \"creative program.\" Standard discussion is \"humans are special because we are creative, and we don't know what the creative program is.\" But we need to make progress on creativity at some point and it kind of feels like we are using the word \"creativity\" as a vague suitcase word to encapsulate \"everything we don't yet know about intelligence.\" Simply saying \"humans are creative\" without properly defining what it means to be creative in a way that we can evaluate in machines is not helping us make progress on developing creative AI. It's unsatisfying to hear critiques of AI that say \"this AI model is not 'truly intelligent' because it is not creative\" without also proposing a way to evaluate its creativity.  In this sense, critiques of AI that say AI is \"not creative\" are bad explanations because these critiques are easy to vary. Without a proposing a proper test for creativity that can actually evaluated, it is not possible for us to conduct a test to refute the critique. I'd love to get your thoughts on how we can construct evaluations for creativity in a way that enables us to make scientific progress on understanding the creative algorithm!\n\n\nReferences:\n\n\nEpisode 9: Introduction to Computational Theory, Theory of Anything podcast\nDavid Deutsch on Coleman Hughes' podcast: Multiverse of Madness \nJohn Cleese's excellent new book Creativity \n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nSupport\nYou can support the project on Patreon (monthly donations, https://www.patreon.com/Increments) or  Ko-fi (one time donation, https://ko-fi.com/increments). Thank you! \n\nHow much explaining could a universal explainer explain if a universal explainer could explain explaining? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe debated calling this episode \u0026quot;An ode to Michael,\u0026quot; because we set out to do an AMA but only get through his first two questions. But never fear, there are only 20 questions, so at this rate we should be done the AMA by the end of 2024. Who said we weren\u0026#39;t fans of longtermism? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuestions\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHey do you guys have a Patreon page or anyway to support you?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Michael)\u003c/strong\u003e Not clear that humans are universal explainers. Standard argument for this is \u0026quot;to assume o.w. is to appeal to the supernatural,\u0026quot; but this argument is weak b/c it does not explain \u003cem\u003ewhy\u003c/em\u003e humans could in principle explain everything. But all Deutch\u0026#39;s ideas rests on this axiom. It\u0026#39;s almost tautological - there \u003cem\u003ecould\u003c/em\u003e be things humans cannot explain, but we wouldn\u0026#39;t even know about these things b/c we wouldn\u0026#39;t be able to explain them. I think this argument that humans are universal explainers and thus can achieve indefinite progress needs more rigor.It might be a step jump from animals to humans, but why could there not be more step jumps in intelligence beyond human intelligence that we do not even know about? I\u0026#39;d love to get your thoughts on this.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Michael)\u003c/strong\u003e Another pt I\u0026#39;d love to get your perspectives on is the idea of the \u0026quot;creative program.\u0026quot; Standard discussion is \u0026quot;humans are special because we are creative, and we don\u0026#39;t know what the creative program is.\u0026quot; But we need to make progress on creativity at some point and it kind of feels like we are using the word \u0026quot;creativity\u0026quot; as a vague suitcase word to encapsulate \u0026quot;everything we don\u0026#39;t yet know about intelligence.\u0026quot; Simply saying \u0026quot;humans are creative\u0026quot; without properly defining what it means to be creative in a way that we can evaluate in machines is not helping us make progress on developing creative AI. It\u0026#39;s unsatisfying to hear critiques of AI that say \u0026quot;this AI model is not \u0026#39;truly intelligent\u0026#39; because it is not creative\u0026quot; without also proposing a way to evaluate its creativity.  In this sense, critiques of AI that say AI is \u0026quot;not creative\u0026quot; are bad explanations because these critiques are easy to vary. Without a proposing a proper test for creativity that can actually evaluated, it is not possible for us to conduct a test to refute the critique. I\u0026#39;d love to get your thoughts on how we can construct evaluations for creativity in a way that enables us to make scientific progress on understanding the creative algorithm!\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-9-introduction-to-computational-theory/id1503194218?i=1000502266361\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEpisode 9: Introduction to Computational Theory\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eTheory of Anything podcast\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid Deutsch on Coleman Hughes\u0026#39; podcast: \u003ca href=\"https://en.padverb.com/er/conversations-with-coleman_rss-09-may-2023-multiverse-of-madness-with-david-deutsch\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMultiverse of Madness\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohn Cleese\u0026#39;s excellent new book \u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Creativity-Short-Cheerful-John-Cleese/dp/0385348274\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eCreativity\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSupport\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nYou can support the project on Patreon (monthly donations, \u003ca href=\"https://www.patreon.com/Increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.patreon.com/Increments\u003c/a\u003e) or  Ko-fi (one time donation, \u003ca href=\"https://ko-fi.com/increments\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://ko-fi.com/increments\u003c/a\u003e). Thank you! \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHow much explaining could a universal explainer explain if a universal explainer could explain explaining? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Our first ask us anything episode! We get through a whopping ... two questions. ","date_published":"2023-07-10T07:30:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/e60dc6c5-1d0a-4061-85b0-e97bcb4b060f.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":70556524,"duration_in_seconds":4409}]},{"id":"bdd4d364-d829-4857-abc8-d121dccdaf5a","title":"#51 - Truth, Moose, and Refrigerated Eggplant: Critiquing Chapman's Meta-Rationality","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/51","content_text":"Vaden comes out swinging against David Chapman's work on meta-rationality. Is Chapman pointing out a fatal flaw, or has Popper solved these problems long ago? Do moose see cups? Does Ben see cups? What the f*** is a cup? \n\nWe discuss \n\n\nChapman's concept of nebulosity \nWhether this concept is covered by Popper \nThe relationship of nebulosity and the vagueness of language \nThe correspondence theory of truth \nIf the concept of \"problem situation\" saves us from Chapman's critique \nWhy \"conjecture and criticism\" isn't everything \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nThe excellent Do Explain podcast. Go listen, right now!\nIn the cells of the eggplant, David Chapman\nChapman's website\nJake Orthwein on Do Explain, Part I \n\n\nChapman Quotes \n\n\nReasonableness is not interested in universality. It aims to get practical work done in specific situations. Precise definitions and absolute truths are rarely necessary or helpful for that. Is this thing an eggplant? Depends on what you are trying to do with it. Is there water in the refrigerator? Well, what do you want it for? What counts as baldness, fruit, red, or water depends on your purposes, and on all sorts of details of the situation. Those details are so numerous and various that they can’t all be taken into account ahead of time to make a general formal theory. Any factor might matter in some situation. On the other hand, nearly all are irrelevant in any specific situation, so determining whether the water in an eggplant counts, or if Alain is bald, is usually easy.\n\n\nDavid Chapman, When will you go bald?\n\n\nDo cow hairs that have come out of the follicle but that are stuck to the cow by friction, sweat, or blood count as part of the cow? How about ones that are on the verge of falling out, but are stuck in the follicle by only the weakest of bonds? The reasonable answer is “Dude! It doesn’t matter!”\n\n\nDavid Chapman, Objects, objectively\n\n\nWe use words as tools to get things done; and to get things done, we improvise, making use of whatever materials are ready to hand. If you want to whack a piece of sheet metal to bend it, and don’t know or care what the “right” tool is (if there even is one), you might take a quick look around the garage, grab a large screwdriver at the “wrong” end, and hit the target with its hard rubber handle. A hand tool may have one or two standard uses; some less common but pretty obvious ones; and unusual, creative ones. But these are not clearly distinct categories of usage.\n\n\nDavid Chapman, The purpose of meaning\n\n\n\nPopper Quotes \n\n\nObservation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, a problem. And its description presupposes a descriptive language, with property words; it presupposes similarity and classification, which in their turn presuppose interests, points of view, and problems. ‘A hungry animal’, writes Katz,  ‘divides the environment into edible and inedible things. An animal in flight sees roads to escape and hiding places . . . Generally speaking, objects change . . . according to the needs of the animal.’ We may add that objects can be classified, and can become similar or dissimilar, only in this way—by being related to needs and interests. This rule applies not only to animals but also to scientists. For the animal a point of view is provided by its needs, the task of the moment, and its expectations; for the scientist by his theoretical interests, the special problem under investigation, his conjectures and anticipations, and the theories which he accepts as a kind of background: his frame of reference, his \"horizon of expectations\".\n\n\nConjectures and Refutations p. 61 (italics added)\n\n\nI believe that there is a limited analogy between this situation and the way we ‘use our terms’ in science. The analogy can be described in this way. In a branch of mathematics in which we operate with signs defined by implicit definition, the fact that these signs have no ‘definite meaning’ does not affect our operating with them, or the precision of our theories. Why is that so? Because we do not overburden the signs. We do not attach a ‘meaning’ to them, beyond that shadow of a meaning that is warranted by our implicit definitions. (And if we attach to them an intuitive meaning, then we are careful to treat this as a private auxiliary device, which must not interfere with the theory.) In this way, we try to keep, as it were, within the ‘penumbra of vagueness’ or of ambiguity, and to avoid touching the problem of the precise limits of this penumbra or range; and it turns out that we can achieve a great deal without discussing the meaning of these signs; for nothing depends on their meaning. In a similar way, I believe, we can operate with these terms whose meaning wehave learned ‘operationally’. We use them, as it were, so that nothing depends upon their meaning, or as little as possible. Our ‘operational definitions’ have the advantage of helping us to shift the problem into a field in which nothing or little depends on words. Clear speaking is speaking in such a way that words do not matter.\n\n\nOSE p. 841 (italics in original)\n\n\nFrege’s opinion is different; for he writes: “A definition of a concept ... must determine unambiguously of any object whether or not it falls under the concept . . . Using a metaphor, we may say: the concept must have a sharp boundary.” But it is clear that for this kind of absolute precision to be demanded of a defined concept, it must first be demanded of the defining concepts, and ultimately of our undefined, or primitive, terms. Yet this is impossible. For either our undefined or primitive terms have a traditional meaning (which is never very precise) or they are introduced by so-called “implicit definitions”—that is, through the way they are used in the context of a theory. This last way of introducing them—if they have to be “introduced”—seems to be the best. But it makes the meaning of the concepts depend on that of the theory, and most theories can be interpreted in more than one way. As a result, implicity defined concepts, and thus all concepts which are defined explicitly with their help, become not merely “vague” but systematically ambiguous. And the various systematically ambiguous interpretations (such as the points and straight lines of projective geometry) may be completely distinct.\n\n\nUnending Quest, p. 27 (italics added)\n\n\nWhat I do suggest is that it is always undesirable to make an effort to increase precision for its own sake—especially linguistic precision—since this usually leads to loss of clarity, and to a waste of time and effort on preliminaries which often turn out to be useless, because they are bypassed by the real advance of the subject: one should never try to be more precise than the problem situation demands. ...  One further result is, quite simply, the realization that the quest for precision, in words or concepts or meanings, is a wild-goose chase. There simply is no such thing as a precise concept (say, in Frege’s sense), though concepts like “price of this kettle” and “thirty pence” are usually precise enough for the problem context in which they are used. \n\n\nUnending Quest, p. 22 (italics in original)\n\n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nHow nebulous is your eggplant? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.  ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eVaden comes out swinging against David Chapman\u0026#39;s work on meta-rationality. Is Chapman pointing out a fatal flaw, or has Popper solved these problems long ago? Do moose see cups? Does Ben see cups? What the f*** \u003cem\u003eis\u003c/em\u003e a cup? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChapman\u0026#39;s concept of nebulosity \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether this concept is covered by Popper \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe relationship of nebulosity and the vagueness of language \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe correspondence theory of truth \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIf the concept of \u0026quot;problem situation\u0026quot; saves us from Chapman\u0026#39;s critique \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy \u0026quot;conjecture and criticism\u0026quot; isn\u0026#39;t everything \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe excellent \u003ca href=\"https://doexplain.buzzsprout.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDo Explain\u003c/a\u003e podcast. Go listen, right now!\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://metarationality.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIn the cells of the eggplant\u003c/a\u003e, David Chapman\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://meaningness.com/about-my-sites\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eChapman\u0026#39;s website\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irmwL97zGcM\u0026ab_channel=DoExplainwithChristoferL%C3%B6vgren\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eJake Orthwein on Do Explain\u003c/a\u003e, Part I \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChapman Quotes\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReasonableness is not interested in universality. It aims to get practical work done in specific situations. Precise definitions and absolute truths are rarely necessary or helpful for that. Is this thing an eggplant? Depends on what you are trying to do with it. Is there water in the refrigerator? Well, what do you want it for? What counts as baldness, fruit, red, or water depends on your purposes, and on all sorts of details of the situation. Those details are so numerous and various that they can’t all be taken into account ahead of time to make a general formal theory. Any factor might matter in \u003cem\u003esome\u003c/em\u003e situation. On the other hand, nearly all are irrelevant in any specific situation, so determining whether the water in an eggplant counts, or if Alain is bald, is usually easy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid Chapman, \u003ca href=\"https://metarationality.com/vagueness\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eWhen will you go bald?\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDo cow hairs that have come out of the follicle but that are stuck to the cow by friction, sweat, or blood count as part of the cow? How about ones that are on the verge of falling out, but are stuck in the follicle by only the weakest of bonds? The reasonable answer is “Dude! It doesn’t matter!”\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid Chapman, \u003ca href=\"https://metarationality.com/objective-objects\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eObjects, objectively\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe use words as tools to get things done; and to get things done, we improvise, making use of whatever materials are ready to hand. If you want to whack a piece of sheet metal to bend it, and don’t know or care what the “right” tool is (if there even is one), you might take a quick look around the garage, grab a large screwdriver at the “wrong” end, and hit the target with its hard rubber handle. A hand tool may have one or two standard uses; some less common but pretty obvious ones; and unusual, creative ones. But these are not clearly distinct categories of usage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid Chapman, \u003ca href=\"https://metarationality.com/purpose-of-meaning\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe purpose of meaning\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePopper Quotes\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObservation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, a problem. And its description presupposes a descriptive language, with property words; \u003cem\u003eit presupposes similarity and classification, which in their turn presuppose interests, points of view, and problems. ‘A hungry animal’, writes Katz,  ‘divides the environment into edible and inedible things. An animal in flight sees roads to escape and hiding places . . . Generally speaking, objects change . . . according to the needs of the animal.’ We may add that objects can be classified, and can become similar or dissimilar, only in this way—by being related to needs and interests.\u003c/em\u003e This rule applies not only to animals but also to scientists. For the animal a point of view is provided by its needs, the task of the moment, and its expectations; for the scientist by his theoretical interests, the special problem under investigation, his conjectures and anticipations, and the theories which he accepts as a kind of background: his frame of reference, his \u0026quot;horizon of expectations\u0026quot;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConjectures and Refutations p. 61 (italics added)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eI believe that there is a limited analogy between this situation and the way we ‘use our terms’ in science. The analogy can be described in this way. In a branch of mathematics in which we operate with signs defined by implicit definition, the fact that these signs have no ‘definite meaning’ does not affect our operating with them, or the precision of our theories. Why is that so? Because we do not overburden the signs. We do not attach a ‘meaning’ to them, beyond that shadow of a meaning that is warranted by our implicit definitions. (And if we attach to them an intuitive meaning, then we are careful to treat this as a private auxiliary device, which must not interfere with the theory.) In this way, we try to keep, as it were, within the ‘penumbra of vagueness’ or of ambiguity, and to avoid touching the problem of the precise limits of this penumbra or range; and it turns out that we can achieve a great deal without discussing the meaning of these signs; for nothing depends on their meaning. In a similar way, I believe, we can operate with these terms whose meaning wehave learned ‘operationally’. We use them, as it were, so that nothing depends upon their meaning, or as little as possible. Our ‘operational definitions’ have the advantage of helping us to shift the problem into a field in which nothing or little depends on words. \u003cem\u003eClear speaking is speaking in such a way that words do not matter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOSE p. 841 (italics in original)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrege’s opinion is different; for he writes: “A definition of a concept ... must determine unambiguously of any object whether or not it falls under the concept . . . Using a metaphor, we may say: the concept must have a sharp boundary.” But it is clear that for this kind of absolute precision to be demanded of a defined concept, it must first be demanded of the defining concepts, and ultimately of our undefined, or primitive, terms. Yet this is impossible.\u003c/em\u003e For either our undefined or primitive terms have a traditional meaning (which is never very precise) or they are introduced by so-called “implicit definitions”—that is, through the way they are used in the context of a theory. This last way of introducing them—if they have to be “introduced”—seems to be the best. But it makes the meaning of the concepts depend on that of the theory, and most theories can be interpreted in more than one way. As a result, implicity defined concepts, and thus all concepts which are defined explicitly with their help, become not merely “vague” but systematically ambiguous. And the various systematically ambiguous interpretations (such as the points and straight lines of projective geometry) may be completely distinct.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnending Quest, p. 27 (italics added)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat I do suggest is that \u003cem\u003eit is always undesirable to make an effort to increase precision for its own sake—especially linguistic precision—since this usually leads to loss of clarity\u003c/em\u003e, and to a waste of time and effort on preliminaries which often turn out to be useless, because they are bypassed by the real advance of the subject: \u003cem\u003eone should never try to be more precise than the problem situation demands.\u003c/em\u003e ...  One further result is, quite simply, the realization that the quest for precision, in words or concepts or meanings, is a wild-goose chase. There simply is no such thing as a precise concept (say, in Frege’s sense), though concepts like “price of this kettle” and “thirty pence” are usually precise enough for the problem context in which they are used. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnending Quest, p. 22 (italics in original)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHow nebulous is \u003cem\u003eyour\u003c/em\u003e eggplant? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e.  \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We discuss David Chapman's work on nebulosity, the correspondence theory of truth, and how it relates to Karl Popper's epistemology. ","date_published":"2023-05-29T04:30:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/bdd4d364-d829-4857-abc8-d121dccdaf5a.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":69211532,"duration_in_seconds":4325}]},{"id":"62e2393d-0457-42d0-a5eb-06453dc39596","title":"#50 - On the Evolutionary Origins of Storytelling, Art, and Science","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/50","content_text":"Fifty godd*** episodes! 'Tis been a ride full of debate, drinks, questionable arguments, Ben becoming both a dualist and a social media addict, and Vaden stalwartly not changing his mind about a single thing. \n\nTo celebrate, we dive into a thesis which connects many strands of what we've discussed over the years: Brian Boyd's work on art and fiction. Boyd provides an evolutionary account of why we're heavily invested in both creating and consuming fictional narratives. If this was simply a fun habit without any real advantage, such a propensity would have been selected against long ago because creating fiction requires an enormous amount of time. This raises the question: What is the advantage of fiction? Why is producing it adaptive? \n\nBrian Boyd is a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Auckland. His most well-known for his scholarship on Vladimir Nabokov, and is currently writing a biography on Karl Popper. You can understand why Vaden got so excited about him. \n\nNote:\nWe spend a lot of time giving background context for Boyd's theory - if you want to skip all that and get right to the theory itself, we've added chapter markers to take you there. \n\nAdded after publishing : Looks like chapter markers aren't working correctly on some players, discussion of theory begins at 00:40:43 \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nReflections on our 50th episode! \nNon-evolutionary theories of art and fiction, and why they fail \nBoyd's thesis that art results from playing with pattern and information \nFiction as a kind of art which results from playing with social information \nHow these theories explain why art is adaptive \nThe link between art and creativity \nHow Boyd's theory improves on the two other major evolutionary theories of art\n\n\nReferences \n\n\nOn the Origin of Stories\nStacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks. Essay from the book Stalking Nabokov \nSteven Pinker's thesis on art \nGeoffrey Miller's thesis \n\n\nQuotes \n\n\nWe crave information. But because we have a much more open-ended curiosity than other animals, we have a special appetite for pattern. We crave the high yield of novel kinds of pattern. So we not only chase and tussle, we not only play physically, but we also play cognitively, with patterns of the kinds of information that matter most to us: sound, sight, and, in our ultrasocial species, social information. We play with the rhythm and pitch and shape of sounds in music and song; with colors and shapes in drawing and painting and mudpies or sandcastles; and with patterns of social information in pretend play and story. In the social world, we see patterns of identity (who are they?), personality (what are they like?), society (whom are they related to? whom do they team up with? how do they rank?). In the world of events, we see patterns of cause and effect. In the world of social events, we see patterns of intention, action, and outcome. (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd) \n\nTo sum up: I’ve explored the hypothesis that art—or at least many forms of art—exploit visual aesthetics for no direct adaptive reason. Making and looking at art does not, and probably never did, result in more surviving offspring. There are, to be sure, adaptive explanations why certain visual patterns give human beings aesthetic, intellectual and sexual pleasure: they are cues to understandable, safe, productive, nutritious or fertile things in the world. And since we are a toolmaking, technological species, one of the things that we can do with our ingenuity, aside from trapping animals, detoxifying plants, conspiring against our enemies and so on, is to create purified, concentrated, supernormal, artificial sources of these visual pleasures, just for the sheer enjoyment experienced by both maker and viewer. (Pinker) \n\nIn the 1950s, when Desmond Morris supplied chimpanzees in his care with paint, brushes, and paper, they threw themselves into painting provided they received no external reward. Those who were offered food would make a few perfunctory strokes and break off quickly to seek another tasty morsel. But those whose motivation remained uncorrupted by “payment” developed a fierce commitment to painting. They painted intensely, persisting, while the session lasted, until they thought a sheet finished, though they would never glance at their work later. (On the Origin of Stories, pg 94) \n\nOur capacity to understand other minds so well, which arises especially from our cooperative disposition, allows us to understand false belief: we appreciate clearly that others may not know information relevant to the situation that we happen to know. That also means that we realize * we * may not know what we need to know, and that realization drives human curiosity. (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd) \n\nVery young children do not readily think offline, away from the here and now. They do not easily recall their recent past, but they can easily use the present props of toys, whether homemade or manufactured, to conjure up scenarios involving agents that hook their attention. They learn to think in a sustained fashion in ways decoupled from the here and now, first by using physical props as fellow agents, then gradually by raiding the readymade stories and characters of their culture. By building on our sociality, fiction stretches our imaginations, taking us from our immediate present along tracks we can easily follow offline because they are the fresh tracks of agents. (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd) \n\nIn the 1989 TV movie The Naked Lie the unpleasant and self-centered Webster shows no sympathy for a prostitute who has been killed. When Victoria asks him, “What if it were your sister?” he sneers: “I don’t have a sister, but if I did, she wouldn’t be a hooker.” Later in the movie Victoria muses to another character: “You know that sister Webster doesn’t have? Well, she doesn’t know how lucky she is.” We easily follow Victoria’s initial counterfactual, Webster’s counterfactual refutation of her condition, and Victoria’s comically contradictory counterfactual consequence, the sister who, because she does not exist, cannot know how lucky she is not to do so if she has to suffer Webster as her brother. Stories help train us to explore possibility as well as actuality, effortlessly and even playfully, and that capacity makes all the difference. (On the Origin of Stories, pg 188) \n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nWhat patterns have you been playing with recently? Tell us your story over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com \n\nImage Credit: Kinza Riza, from the Atlantic article. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eFifty godd*** episodes! \u0026#39;Tis been a ride full of debate, drinks, questionable arguments, Ben becoming both a dualist and a social media addict, and Vaden stalwartly not changing his mind about a single thing. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTo celebrate, we dive into a thesis which connects many strands of what we\u0026#39;ve discussed over the years: Brian Boyd\u0026#39;s work on art and fiction. Boyd provides an evolutionary account of why we\u0026#39;re heavily invested in both creating and consuming fictional narratives. If this was simply a fun habit without any real advantage, such a propensity would have been selected against long ago because creating fiction requires an enormous amount of time. This raises the question: What \u003cem\u003eis\u003c/em\u003e the advantage of fiction? Why is producing it adaptive? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://profiles.auckland.ac.nz/b-boyd\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eBrian Boyd\u003c/a\u003e is a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Auckland. His most well-known for his scholarship on Vladimir Nabokov, and is currently writing a biography on Karl Popper. You can understand why Vaden got so excited about him. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nWe spend a lot of time giving background context for Boyd\u0026#39;s theory - if you want to skip all that and get right to the theory itself, we\u0026#39;ve added chapter markers to take you there. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdded after publishing : Looks like chapter markers aren\u0026#39;t working correctly on some players, discussion of theory begins at 00:40:43\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReflections on our 50th episode! \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNon-evolutionary theories of art and fiction, and why they fail \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoyd\u0026#39;s thesis that art results from playing with pattern and information \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiction as a kind of art which results from playing with \u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e information \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow these theories explain why art is adaptive \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe link between art and creativity \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow Boyd\u0026#39;s theory improves on the two other major evolutionary theories of art\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Stories-Evolution-Cognition-Fiction/dp/0674057112\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eOn the Origin of Stories\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks. Essay from the book \u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Stalking-Nabokov-Brian-Boyd/dp/0231158572/ref=sr_1_1?crid=GM1PNYNGW6EO\u0026keywords=stalking+nabokov\u0026qid=1682337869\u0026s=books\u0026sprefix=stalking+nabokov%2Cstripbooks%2C82\u0026sr=1-1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eStalking Nabokov\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteven Pinker\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/pinker_2016_we_make_art_because_we_can_mona_exhibit_by_steven_pinker.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ethesis on art\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeoffrey Miller\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://varenne.art/usr/library/documents/main/geoffrey_miller_art_to_attract_mates.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ethesis\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWe crave information. But because we have a much more open-ended curiosity than other animals, we have a special appetite for pattern. We crave the high yield of novel kinds of pattern. So we not only chase and tussle, we not only play physically, but we also play cognitively, with patterns of the kinds of information that matter most to us: sound, sight, and, in our ultrasocial species, social information. We play with the rhythm and pitch and shape of sounds in music and song; with colors and shapes in drawing and painting and mudpies or sandcastles; and with patterns of social information in pretend play and story. In the social world, we see patterns of identity (who are they?), personality (what are they like?), society (whom are they related to? whom do they team up with? how do they rank?). In the world of events, we see patterns of cause and effect. In the world of social events, we see patterns of intention, action, and outcome.\u003c/em\u003e (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd) \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTo sum up: I’ve explored the hypothesis that art—or at least many forms of art—exploit visual aesthetics for no direct adaptive reason. Making and looking at art does not, and probably never did, result in more surviving offspring. There are, to be sure, adaptive explanations why certain visual patterns give human beings aesthetic, intellectual and sexual pleasure: they are cues to understandable, safe, productive, nutritious or fertile things in the world. And since we are a toolmaking, technological species, one of the things that we can do with our ingenuity, aside from trapping animals, detoxifying plants, conspiring against our enemies and so on, is to create purified, concentrated, supernormal, artificial sources of these visual pleasures, just for the sheer enjoyment experienced by both maker and viewer.\u003c/em\u003e (Pinker) \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the 1950s, when Desmond Morris supplied chimpanzees in his care with paint, brushes, and paper, they threw themselves into painting provided they received no external reward. Those who were offered food would make a few perfunctory strokes and break off quickly to seek another tasty morsel. But those whose motivation remained uncorrupted by “payment” developed a fierce commitment to painting. They painted intensely, persisting, while the session lasted, until they thought a sheet finished, though they would never glance at their work later.\u003c/em\u003e (On the Origin of Stories, pg 94) \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOur capacity to understand other minds so well, which arises especially from our cooperative disposition, allows us to understand false belief: we appreciate clearly that others may not know information relevant to the situation that we happen to know. That also means that we realize * we * may not know what we need to know, and that realization drives human curiosity.\u003c/em\u003e (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd) \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVery young children do not readily think offline, away from the here and now. They do not easily recall their recent past, but they can easily use the present props of toys, whether homemade or manufactured, to conjure up scenarios involving agents that hook their attention. They learn to think in a sustained fashion in ways decoupled from the here and now, first by using physical props as fellow agents, then gradually by raiding the readymade stories and characters of their culture. By building on our sociality, fiction stretches our imaginations, taking us from our immediate present along tracks we can easily follow offline because they are the fresh tracks of agents.\u003c/em\u003e (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd) \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the 1989 TV movie The Naked Lie the unpleasant and self-centered Webster shows no sympathy for a prostitute who has been killed. When Victoria asks him, “What if it were your sister?” he sneers: “I don’t have a sister, but if I did, she wouldn’t be a hooker.” Later in the movie Victoria muses to another character: “You know that sister Webster doesn’t have? Well, she doesn’t know how lucky she is.” We easily follow Victoria’s initial counterfactual, Webster’s counterfactual refutation of her condition, and Victoria’s comically contradictory counterfactual consequence, the sister who, because she does not exist, cannot know how lucky she is not to do so if she has to suffer Webster as her brother. Stories help train us to explore possibility as well as actuality, effortlessly and even playfully, and that capacity makes all the difference.\u003c/em\u003e (On the Origin of Stories, pg 188) \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat patterns have you been playing with recently? Tell us your story over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eImage Credit: Kinza Riza, from the \u003ca href=\"https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/10/humanitys-earliest-art-was-spray-painted-graffiti/381259/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAtlantic article\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Why do humans engage in art and storytelling? For our 50th episode, we explore Brian Boyd's thesis that art evolved from selection pressure to better understand the patterns and information around us. ","date_published":"2023-04-24T12:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/62e2393d-0457-42d0-a5eb-06453dc39596.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":74019143,"duration_in_seconds":7253}]},{"id":"d190df1f-0cf0-4161-ba5f-544066c08c1f","title":"#49 - AGI: Could The End Be Nigh? (With Rosie Campbell)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/49","content_text":"When big bearded men wearing fedoras begin yelling at you that the end is nigh and superintelligence is about to kill us all, what should you do? Vaden says don't panic, and Ben is simply awestruck by the ability to grow a beard in the first place. \n\nTo help us think through the potential risks and rewards of ever more impressive machine learning models, we invited Rosie Campbell on the podcast. Rosie is on the safety team at OpenAI and, while she's more worried about the existential risks of AI than we are, she's just as keen on some debate over a bottle of wine. \n\nWe discuss:\n\n\nWhether machine learning poses an existential threat \nHow concerned we should be about existing AI \nWhether deep learning can get us to artificial general intelligence (AGI)\nIf AI safety is simply quality assurance\nHow can we test if an AI system is creative? \n\n\nReferences:\n\n\nMathgen: Randomly generated math papers \n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nFollow Rosie at @RosieCampbell or https://www.rosiecampbell.xyz/\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nProve you're creative by inventing the next big thing and then send it to us at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Rosie Campbell.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWhen big bearded men wearing fedoras begin yelling at you that \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA1sNLL6yg4\u0026ab_channel=BanklessShows\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ethe end is nigh\u003c/a\u003e and superintelligence is about to kill us all, what should you do? Vaden says don\u0026#39;t panic, and Ben is simply awestruck by the ability to grow a beard in the first place. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTo help us think through the potential risks and rewards of ever more impressive machine learning models, we invited Rosie Campbell on the podcast. Rosie is on the safety team at OpenAI and, while she\u0026#39;s more worried about the existential risks of AI than we are, she\u0026#39;s just as keen on some debate over a bottle of wine. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether machine learning poses an existential threat \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow concerned we should be about existing AI \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether deep learning can get us to artificial \u003cem\u003egeneral\u003c/em\u003e intelligence (AGI)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIf AI safety is simply quality assurance\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow can we test if an AI system is creative? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://thatsmathematics.com/mathgen/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMathgen: Randomly generated math papers\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow Rosie at @RosieCampbell or \u003ca href=\"https://www.rosiecampbell.xyz/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.rosiecampbell.xyz/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eProve you\u0026#39;re creative by inventing the next big thing and then send it to us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Rosie Campbell.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"The delightful Rosie Campbell joins us on the podcast to debate AI, AGI, superintelligence, and rogue computer viruses. ","date_published":"2023-03-22T10:15:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/d190df1f-0cf0-4161-ba5f-544066c08c1f.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":81494098,"duration_in_seconds":5093}]},{"id":"b39c48d9-c89a-4ad9-a09f-32168d870961","title":"#48 (C\u0026R Chap. 18) - Utopia and Violence ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/48","content_text":"You may, perchance, have noticed that the sweeping utopian movements of the past did not end well. And most of them involved an horrific amount of violence. Is this connection just chance, or is there something inherent to utopian thinking which leads to violent ends?  We turn to Chapter 18 of Conjectures and Refutations where Popper gives us his spicy take. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nHow do you \"see\" your early memories? \nVaden corrects the record on a few points \nRationality grounded in humility versus goal-oriented rationality \nIf ends can be decided rationally \nHow and if goal-oriented rationality leads to violence \nWorking to reduce concrete evils versus working to achieve abstract goods \n\n\n** Link to chapter **:\n\n\nhttps://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20672078\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nA rationalist, as I use the word, is a man who attempts to reach decisions by argument and perhaps, in certain cases, by compromise, rather than by violence. He is a man who would rather be unsuccessful in convincing another man by argument than successful in crushing him by force, by intimidation and threats, or even by persuasive propaganda.\nPg. 478 \n\nI believe that we can avoid violence only in so far as we practise this attitude of reasonableness when dealing with one another in social life; and that any other attitude is likely to produce violence—even a one-sided attempt to deal with others by gentle persuasion, and to convince them by argument and example of those insights we are proud of possessing, and of whose truth we are absolutely certain. We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell. Only if we give up our authoritarian attitude in the realm of opinion, only if we establish the attitude of give and take, of readiness to learn from other people, can we hope to control acts of violence inspired by piety and duty.\nPg. 479 \n\nIn the latter case political action will be rational only if we first determine the final ends of the political changes which we intend to bring about. It will be rational only relative to certain ideas of what a state ought to be like. Thus it appears that as a preliminary to any rational political action we must first attempt to become as clear as possible about our ultimate political ends; for example the kind of state which we should consider the best; and only afterwards can we begin to determine the means which may best help us to realize this state, or to move slowly towards it, taking it as the aim of a historical process which we may to some extent influence and steer towards the goal selected. Now it is precisely this view which I call Utopianism. Any rational and non-selfish political action, on this view, must be preceded by a determination of our ultimate ends, not merely of intermediate or partial aims which are only steps towards our ultimate end, and which therefore should be considered as means rather than as ends; therefore rational political action must be based upon a more or less clear and detailed description or blueprint of our ideal state, and also upon a plan or blueprint of the historical path that leads towards this goal.\nPg. 481-482 \n\nThe Utopian method, which chooses an ideal state of society as the aim which all our political actions should serve, is likely to produce violence can be shown thus. Since we cannot determine the ultimate ends of political actions scientifically, or by purely rational methods, differences of opinion concerning what the ideal state should be like cannot always be smoothed out by the method of argument. They will at least partly have the character of religious differences. And there can hardly be tolerance between these different Utopian religions. Utopian aims are designed to serve as a basis for rational political action and discussion, and such action appears to be possible only if the aim is definitely decided upon. Thus the Utopianist must win over, or else crush, his Utopianist competitors who do not share his own Utopian aims and who do not profess his own Utopianist religion.\nPg. 483 \n\nWork for the elimination of concrete evils rather than for the realization of abstract goods. Do not aim at establishing happiness by political means. Rather aim at the elimination of concrete miseries. Or, in more practical terms: fight for the elimination of poverty by direct means—for example, by making sure that everybody has a minimum income. Or fight against epidemics and disease by erecting hospitals and schools of medicine. Fight illiteracy as you fight criminality. But do all this by direct means. Choose what you consider the most urgent evil of the society in which you live, and try patiently to convince people that we can get rid of it.\nPg. 485 \n\nBut do not try to realize these aims indirectly by designing and working for a distant ideal of a society which is wholly good. However deeply you may feel indebted to its inspiring vision, do not think that you are obliged to work for its realization, or that it is your mission to open the eyes of others to its beauty. Do not allow your dreams of a beautiful world to lure you away from the claims of men who suffer here and now. Our fellow men have a claim to our help; no generation must be sacrificed for the sake of future generations, for the sake of an ideal of happiness that may never be realized. In brief, it is my thesis that human misery is the most urgent problem of a rational public policy and that happiness is not such a problem. The attainment of happiness should be left to our private endeavours.\nPg. 485 \n\nIt is a fact, and not a very strange fact, that it is not so very difficult to reach agreement by discussion on what are the most intolerable evils of our society, and on what are the most urgent social reforms. Such an agreement can be reached much more easily than an agreement concerning some ideal form of social life. For the evils are with us here and now. They can be experienced, and are being experienced every day, by many people who have been and are being made miserable by poverty, unemployment, national oppression, war and disease. Those of us who do not suffer from these miseries meet every day others who can describe them to us. This is what makes the evils concrete. This is why we can get somewhere in arguing about them; why we can profit here from the attitude of reasonableness. We can learn by listening to concrete claims, by patiently trying to assess them as impartially as we can, and by considering ways of meeting them without creating worse evils\nPg. 485 \n\nI believe that it is quite true that we can judge the rationality of an action only in relation to some aims or ends. But this does not necessarily mean that the rationality of a political action can be judged only in relation to an _historical end._\nPg. 486 \n\nThe appeal of Utopianism arises from the failure to realize that we cannot make heaven on earth. What I believe we can do instead is to make life a little less terrible and a little less unjust in each generation. A good deal can be achieved in this way. Much has been achieved in the last hundred years. More could be achieved by our own generation. There are many pressing problems which we might solve, at least partially, such as helping the weak and the sick, and those who suffer under oppression and injustice; stamping out unemployment; equalizing opportunities; and preventing international crime, such as blackmail and war instigated by men like gods, by omnipotent and omniscient leaders. All this we might achieve if only we could give up dreaming about distant ideals and fighting over our Utopian blueprints for a new world and a new man.\nPg. 487 \n\n\n** References ** \n\n\nEA Forum post showing data on forecasting accuracy across different time horizons: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hqkyaHLQhzuREcXSX/data-on-forecasting-accuracy-across-different-time-horizons#Calibrations\nVox article talking about PELTIV's: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23569519/effective-altrusim-sam-bankman-fried-will-macaskill-ea-risk-decentralization-philanthropy\n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nDo you see your sweeping utopian blueprints in first person or third person? Send these blueprints over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com \n\nImage credit: Engin_Akyurt","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eYou may, perchance, have noticed that the sweeping utopian movements of the past did not end well. And most of them involved an horrific amount of violence. Is this connection just chance, or is there something inherent to utopian thinking which leads to violent ends?  We turn to Chapter 18 of Conjectures and Refutations where Popper gives us his spicy take. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow do you \u0026quot;see\u0026quot; your early memories? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaden corrects the record on a few points \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRationality grounded in humility versus goal-oriented rationality \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIf ends can be decided rationally \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow and if goal-oriented rationality leads to violence \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorking to reduce concrete evils versus working to achieve abstract goods \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e** Link to chapter **:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20672078\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20672078\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA rationalist, as I use the word, is a man who attempts to reach decisions by argument and perhaps, in certain cases, by compromise, rather than by violence. He is a man who would rather be unsuccessful in convincing another man by argument than successful in crushing him by force, by intimidation and threats, or even by persuasive propaganda.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nPg. 478 \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI believe that we can avoid violence only in so far as we practise this attitude of reasonableness when dealing with one another in social life; and that any other attitude is likely to produce violence—even a one-sided attempt to deal with others by gentle persuasion, and to convince them by argument and example of those insights we are proud of possessing, and of whose truth we are absolutely certain. We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell. Only if we give up our authoritarian attitude in the realm of opinion, only if we establish the attitude of give and take, of readiness to learn from other people, can we hope to control acts of violence inspired by piety and duty.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nPg. 479 \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the latter case political action will be rational only if we first determine the final ends of the political changes which we intend to bring about. It will be rational only relative to certain ideas of what a state ought to be like. Thus it appears that as a preliminary to any rational political action we must first attempt to become as clear as possible about our ultimate political ends; for example the kind of state which we should consider the best; and only afterwards can we begin to determine the means which may best help us to realize this state, or to move slowly towards it, taking it as the aim of a historical process which we may to some extent influence and steer towards the goal selected. Now it is precisely this view which I call Utopianism. Any rational and non-selfish political action, on this view, must be preceded by a determination of our ultimate ends, not merely of intermediate or partial aims which are only steps towards our ultimate end, and which therefore should be considered as means rather than as ends; therefore rational political action must be based upon a more or less clear and detailed description or blueprint of our ideal state, and also upon a plan or blueprint of the historical path that leads towards this goal.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nPg. 481-482 \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Utopian method, which chooses an ideal state of society as the aim which all our political actions should serve, is likely to produce violence can be shown thus. Since we cannot determine the ultimate ends of political actions scientifically, or by purely rational methods, differences of opinion concerning what the ideal state should be like cannot always be smoothed out by the method of argument. They will at least partly have the character of religious differences. And there can hardly be tolerance between these different Utopian religions. Utopian aims are designed to serve as a basis for rational political action and discussion, and such action appears to be possible only if the aim is definitely decided upon. Thus the Utopianist must win over, or else crush, his Utopianist competitors who do not share his own Utopian aims and who do not profess his own Utopianist religion.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nPg. 483 \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWork for the elimination of concrete evils rather than for the realization of abstract goods. Do not aim at establishing happiness by political means. Rather aim at the elimination of concrete miseries. Or, in more practical terms: fight for the elimination of poverty by direct means—for example, by making sure that everybody has a minimum income. Or fight against epidemics and disease by erecting hospitals and schools of medicine. Fight illiteracy as you fight criminality. But do all this by direct means. Choose what you consider the most urgent evil of the society in which you live, and try patiently to convince people that we can get rid of it.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nPg. 485 \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBut do not try to realize these aims indirectly by designing and working for a distant ideal of a society which is wholly good. However deeply you may feel indebted to its inspiring vision, do not think that you are obliged to work for its realization, or that it is your mission to open the eyes of others to its beauty. Do not allow your dreams of a beautiful world to lure you away from the claims of men who suffer here and now. Our fellow men have a claim to our help; no generation must be sacrificed for the sake of future generations, for the sake of an ideal of happiness that may never be realized. In brief, it is my thesis that human misery is the most urgent problem of a rational public policy and that happiness is not such a problem. The attainment of happiness should be left to our private endeavours.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nPg. 485 \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIt is a fact, and not a very strange fact, that it is not so very difficult to reach agreement by discussion on what are the most intolerable evils of our society, and on what are the most urgent social reforms. Such an agreement can be reached much more easily than an agreement concerning some ideal form of social life. For the evils are with us here and now. They can be experienced, and are being experienced every day, by many people who have been and are being made miserable by poverty, unemployment, national oppression, war and disease. Those of us who do not suffer from these miseries meet every day others who can describe them to us. This is what makes the evils concrete. This is why we can get somewhere in arguing about them; why we can profit here from the attitude of reasonableness. We can learn by listening to concrete claims, by patiently trying to assess them as impartially as we can, and by considering ways of meeting them without creating worse evils\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nPg. 485 \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI believe that it is quite true that we can judge the rationality of an action only in relation to some aims or ends. But this does not necessarily mean that the rationality of a political action can be judged only in relation to an _historical\u003c/em\u003e end._\u003cbr\u003e\nPg. 486 \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe appeal of Utopianism arises from the failure to realize that we cannot make heaven on earth. What I believe we can do instead is to make life a little less terrible and a little less unjust in each generation. A good deal can be achieved in this way. Much has been achieved in the last hundred years. More could be achieved by our own generation. There are many pressing problems which we might solve, at least partially, such as helping the weak and the sick, and those who suffer under oppression and injustice; stamping out unemployment; equalizing opportunities; and preventing international crime, such as blackmail and war instigated by men like gods, by omnipotent and omniscient leaders. All this we might achieve if only we could give up dreaming about distant ideals and fighting over our Utopian blueprints for a new world and a new man.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nPg. 487 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e** References ** \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEA Forum post showing data on forecasting accuracy across different time horizons: \u003ca href=\"https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hqkyaHLQhzuREcXSX/data-on-forecasting-accuracy-across-different-time-horizons#Calibrations\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hqkyaHLQhzuREcXSX/data-on-forecasting-accuracy-across-different-time-horizons#Calibrations\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVox article talking about PELTIV\u0026#39;s: \u003ca href=\"https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23569519/effective-altrusim-sam-bankman-fried-will-macaskill-ea-risk-decentralization-philanthropy\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23569519/effective-altrusim-sam-bankman-fried-will-macaskill-ea-risk-decentralization-philanthropy\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDo you see your sweeping utopian blueprints in first person or third person? Send these blueprints over to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eImage credit: \u003ca href=\"https://www.needpix.com/photo/1062955/police-violence-thinking-man-mounting-journalist-helmets-human-news-barricade\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEngin_Akyurt\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Violent utopias? Utopian violence? Are the rationalists going to destroy the world? Chapter 18 of Conjectures and Refutations coming in hot. ","date_published":"2023-02-24T12:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/b39c48d9-c89a-4ad9-a09f-32168d870961.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":58261837,"duration_in_seconds":3641}]},{"id":"762ad0a7-96d2-4f2b-be8b-b0133e282e68","title":"#47 (Bonus) - Dualism, Reductionism, and Explanation Pancakes ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/47","content_text":"Second holiday season bonus episode! Vaden joins Chesto on The Declaration podcast to talk about monism, dualism, the reality of abstractions, emergence, and reductionism. This convo was recorded in 2019, but much of the content is evergreen and we think it still makes for interestin' listenin'. Except the sound quality, which leaves much to be desired. Thanks Blue Yeti. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nThe mind-body problem \nWhy Vaden is a filthy pluralist and Chesto is a sober, sane, rational materialist \nReductonism vs dualism vs pluralism\nThe reality of abstractions \nWhy explanations are central to science \nWould you get into a Star Trek transporter? \nAnd, a little bit out of left field, some advice for talking about mental health \n\n\nReferences: \n\n\nGödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid \nBeginning of Infinity\nChesto's instagram for your eyes and soundcloud for your ears. \n\n\nErrata:\n\n\nIn the Domino example from BOI the prime number was 641, not whatever number Vaden said \nThe Voyager spacecraft launched in 1977, not 1972\n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nAre emails real? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \n\nPhoto credit: https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/11/07/optimization-dominoes-and-frankenstein/","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eSecond holiday season bonus episode! Vaden joins Chesto on \u003ca href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-declaration-podcast/id1433998370\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Declaration\u003c/a\u003e podcast to talk about monism, dualism, the reality of abstractions, emergence, and reductionism. This convo was recorded in 2019, but much of the content is evergreen and we think it still makes for interestin\u0026#39; listenin\u0026#39;. Except the sound quality, which leaves much to be desired. Thanks Blue Yeti. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe mind-body problem \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy Vaden is a filthy pluralist and Chesto is a sober, sane, rational materialist \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReductonism vs dualism vs pluralism\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe reality of abstractions \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy explanations are central to science \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWould you get into a Star Trek transporter? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnd, a little bit out of left field, some advice for talking about mental health \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://smile.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567?sa-no-redirect=1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eGödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Beginning-Infinity-Explanations-Transform-World/dp/0143121359\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eBeginning of Infinity\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChesto\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://www.instagram.com/mynameischesto/?hl=en\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003einstagram\u003c/a\u003e for your eyes and \u003ca href=\"https://soundcloud.com/mynameischesto\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003esoundcloud\u003c/a\u003e for your ears. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eErrata:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIn the Domino example from BOI the prime number was 641, not whatever number Vaden said \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Voyager spacecraft launched in 1977, not 1972\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAre emails real? Tell us at \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhoto credit\u003c/em\u003e: \u003ca href=\"https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/11/07/optimization-dominoes-and-frankenstein/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/11/07/optimization-dominoes-and-frankenstein/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Vaden goes on The Declaration podcast to argue about dualism, the reality of abstractions, emergence, and reductionism. ","date_published":"2023-01-16T09:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/762ad0a7-96d2-4f2b-be8b-b0133e282e68.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":88811310,"duration_in_seconds":5550}]},{"id":"4b26dbf2-7bcd-44e6-ac65-c3dbca70c897","title":"#46 (Bonus) - Arguing about probability (with Nick Anyos)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/46","content_text":"We make a guest appearance on Nick Anyos' podcast to talk about effective altruism, longtermism, and probability. Nick (very politely) pushes back on our anti-Bayesian credo, and we get deep into the weeds of probability and epistemology. \n\nYou can find Nick's podcast on institutional design here, and his substack here. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nThe lack of feedback loops in longtermism \nWhether quantifying your beliefs is helpful \nObjective versus subjective knowledge \nThe difference between prediction and explanation\nThe difference between Bayesian epistemology and Bayesian statistics\nStatistical modelling and when statistics is useful \n\n\nLinks\n\n\nPhilosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics by Andrew Gelman and Cosma Shalizi\nEA forum post showing all forecasts beyond a year out are uncalibrated. \nVaclav smil quote where he predicts a pandemic by 2021:\n\n\nThe following realities indicate the imminence of the risk. The typical frequency of influenza pan- demics was once every 50–60 years between 1700 and 1889 (the longest known gap was 52 years, between the pandemics of 1729–1733 and 1781–1782) and only once every 10–40 years since 1889. The recurrence interval, calculated simply as the mean time elapsed between the last six known pandemics, is about 28 years, with the extremes of 6 and 53 years. Adding the mean and the highest interval to 1968 gives a span between 1996 and 2021. We are, probabilistically speaking, very much inside a high-risk zone.\n\n- Global Catastropes and Trends, p.46\n\nReference for Tetlock's superforecasters failing to predict the pandemic. \"On February 20th, Tetlock’s superforecasters predicted only a 3% chance that there would be 200,000+ coronavirus cases a month later (there were).\" \n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nErrata\n\n\nAt the beginning of the episode Vaden says he hasn't been interviewed on another podcast before. He forgot his appearence on The Declaration Podcast in 2019, which will be appearing as a bonus episode on our feed in the coming weeks. \n\n\nSick of hearing us talk about this subject? Understandable! Send topic suggestions over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \n\nPhoto credit: James O’Brien for Quanta Magazine","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe make a guest appearance on Nick Anyos\u0026#39; podcast to talk about effective altruism, longtermism, and probability. Nick (very politely) pushes back on our anti-Bayesian credo, and we get deep into the weeds of probability and epistemology. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eYou can find Nick\u0026#39;s podcast on institutional design \u003ca href=\"https://institutionaldesign.podbean.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e, and his substack \u003ca href=\"https://institutionaldesign.substack.com/?utm_source=substack\u0026utm_medium=web\u0026utm_campaign=substack_profile\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe lack of feedback loops in longtermism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether quantifying your beliefs is helpful \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eObjective versus subjective knowledge \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe difference between prediction and explanation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe difference between Bayesian epistemology and Bayesian statistics\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStatistical modelling and when statistics is useful \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLinks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"http://www.stat.columbia.edu/%7Egelman/research/published/philosophy.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ePhilosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics\u003c/a\u003e by Andrew Gelman and Cosma Shalizi\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hqkyaHLQhzuREcXSX/data-on-forecasting-accuracy-across-different-time-horizons#Calibrations\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEA forum post\u003c/a\u003e showing all forecasts beyond a year out are uncalibrated. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eVaclav smil quote where he predicts a pandemic by 2021:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe following realities indicate the imminence of the risk. The typical frequency of influenza pan- demics was once every 50–60 years between 1700 and 1889 (the longest known gap was 52 years, between the pandemics of 1729–1733 and 1781–1782) and only once every 10–40 years since 1889. The recurrence interval, calculated simply as the mean time elapsed between the last six known pandemics, is about 28 years, with the extremes of 6 and 53 years. Adding the mean and the highest interval to 1968 gives a span between 1996 and 2021. We are, probabilistically speaking, very much inside a high-risk zone.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Global Catastropes and Trends, p.46\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eReference for Tetlock\u0026#39;s superforecasters failing to predict the pandemic. \u003ca href=\"https://wearenotsaved.com/2020/04/18/pandemic-uncovers-the-ridiculousness-of-superforecasting/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u0026quot;On February 20th, Tetlock’s superforecasters predicted only a 3% chance that there would be 200,000+ coronavirus cases a month later (there were).\u0026quot;\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eErrata\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAt the beginning of the episode Vaden says he hasn\u0026#39;t been interviewed on another podcast before. He forgot \u003ca href=\"https://www.thedeclarationonline.com/podcast/2019/7/23/chesto-and-vaden-debatecast\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehis appearence\u003c/a\u003e on The Declaration Podcast in 2019, which will be appearing as a bonus episode on our feed in the coming weeks. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSick of hearing us talk about this subject? Understandable! Send topic suggestions over to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePhoto credit: \u003ca href=\"http://www.obrien-studio.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eJames O’Brien\u003c/a\u003e for \u003ca href=\"https://www.quantamagazine.org/where-quantum-probability-comes-from-20190909/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eQuanta Magazine\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Ben and Vaden make a guest appearance on Nick Anyos' podcast on criticisms of effective altruism. As usual, they end up arguing about probability for most of it. ","date_published":"2022-12-19T12:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/4b26dbf2-7bcd-44e6-ac65-c3dbca70c897.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":85872117,"duration_in_seconds":7156}]},{"id":"6ce3560d-1cbd-414c-8e21-54bd37bc5711","title":"#45 - Four Central Fallacies of AI Research (with Melanie Mitchell)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/45","content_text":"We were delighted to be joined by Davis Professor at the Sante Fe Insitute, Melanie Mitchell! We chat about our understanding of artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and whether it's reasonable to expect us to be able to build sophisticated human-like automated systems anytime soon. \n\nFollow Melanie on twitter @MelMitchell1 and check out her website: https://melaniemitchell.me/\n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nAI hype through the ages \nHow do we know if machines understand? \nWinograd schemas and the \"WinoGrande\" challenge. \nThe importance of metaphor and analogies to intelligence \nThe four fallacies in AI research: \n\n\n1. Narrow intelligence is on a continuum with general intelligence\n2. Easy things are easy and hard things are hard\n3. The lure of wishful mnemonics\n4. Intelligence is all in the brain\n\nWhether embodiment is necessary for true intelligence\nDouglas Hofstadter's views on AI \nRay Kurzweil and the \"singularity\" \nThe fact that Moore's law doesn't hold for software\nThe difference between symbolic AI and machine learning \nWhat analogies have to teach us about human cognition \n\n\nErrata \n\n\nBen mistakenly says that Eliezer Yudkowsky has bet that everyone will die by 2025. It's actually by 2030. You can find the details of the bet here: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/my_end-of-the-w.html. \n\n\nReferences:\n\n\nNY Times reporting on Perceptrons. \nThe WinoGrande challenge paper\nWhy AI is harder than we think\nThe Singularity is Near, by Ray Kurzweil\n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nEliezer was more scared than Douglas about AI, so he wrote a blog post about it. Who wrote the blog post, Eliezer or Douglas? Tell us at over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Special Guest: Melanie Mitchell.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe were delighted to be joined by Davis Professor at the Sante Fe Insitute, Melanie Mitchell! We chat about our understanding of artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and whether it\u0026#39;s reasonable to expect us to be able to build sophisticated human-like automated systems anytime soon. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFollow Melanie on twitter @MelMitchell1 and check out her website: \u003ca href=\"https://melaniemitchell.me/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://melaniemitchell.me/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAI hype through the ages \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow do we know if machines understand? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWinograd schemas and the \u0026quot;WinoGrande\u0026quot; challenge. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe importance of metaphor and analogies to intelligence \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe four fallacies in AI research: \n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e1. Narrow intelligence is on a continuum with general intelligence\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e2. Easy things are easy and hard things are hard\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e3. The lure of wishful mnemonics\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e4. Intelligence is all in the brain\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether embodiment is necessary for true intelligence\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDouglas Hofstadter\u0026#39;s views on AI \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRay Kurzweil and the \u0026quot;singularity\u0026quot; \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe fact that Moore\u0026#39;s law doesn\u0026#39;t hold for software\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe difference between symbolic AI and machine learning \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat analogies have to teach us about human cognition \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eErrata\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen mistakenly says that Eliezer Yudkowsky has bet that everyone will die by 2025. It\u0026#39;s actually by 2030. You can find the details of the bet here: \u003ca href=\"https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/my_end-of-the-w.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/my_end-of-the-w.html\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNY Times \u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/1958/07/13/archives/electronic-brain-teaches-itself.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ereporting on Perceptrons\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe WinoGrande challenge \u003ca href=\"https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10641\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epaper\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.12871.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eWhy AI is harder than we think\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://smile.amazon.com/Singularity-Near-Humans-Transcend-Biology/dp/0143037889?sa-no-redirect=1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Singularity is Near\u003c/a\u003e, by Ray Kurzweil\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eEliezer was more scared than Douglas about AI, so he wrote a blog post about it. Who wrote the blog post, Eliezer or Douglas? Tell us at over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Melanie Mitchell.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We chat with Melanie Mitchell about our understanding of artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and whether it's reasonable to expect us to be able to build sophisticated human-like automated systems anytime soon. ","date_published":"2022-10-31T10:45:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6ce3560d-1cbd-414c-8e21-54bd37bc5711.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":51348374,"duration_in_seconds":3209}]},{"id":"6c02f356-e380-4b16-a69c-d43b882b4746","title":"#44 - Longtermism Revisited: What We Owe the Future","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/44","content_text":"Like moths to a flame, we come back to longtermism once again. But it's not our fault. Will MacAskill published a new book, What We Owe the Future, and billions (trillions!) of lives are at stake if we don't review it. Sisyphus had his task and we have ours. We're doing it for the (great great great ... great) grandchildren. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nWhether longtermism is actionable \nWhether the book is a faithful representation of longtermism as practiced \nWhy humans are actually cool, despite what you might hear \nSome cool ideas from the book including career advice and allowing vaccines on the free market \nBen's love of charter cities and whether he's is a totalitarian at heart \nThe plausability of \"value lock-in\"\nThe bizarro world of population ethics \n\n\nReferences:\n\"Bait-and-switch\" critique from a longtermist blogger: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9Y6Y6qoAigRC7A8eX/my-take-on-what-we-owe-the-future\n\nQuote: \"For instance, I’m worried people will feel bait-and-switched if they get into EA via WWOTF then do an 80,000 Hours call or hang out around their EA university group and realize most people think AI risk is the biggest longtermist priority, many thinking this by a large margin.\"\n\nContact us \n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nHow long is your termist? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eLike moths to a flame, we come back to longtermism once again. But it\u0026#39;s not our fault. Will MacAskill published a new book, \u003cem\u003eWhat We Owe the Future\u003c/em\u003e, and billions (trillions!) of lives are at stake if we don\u0026#39;t review it. Sisyphus had his task and we have ours. We\u0026#39;re doing it for the (great great great ... great) grandchildren. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether longtermism is actionable \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether the book is a faithful representation of longtermism as practiced \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy humans are actually cool, despite what you might hear \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSome cool ideas from the book including career advice and allowing vaccines on the free market \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026#39;s love of charter cities and whether he\u0026#39;s is a totalitarian at heart \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe plausability of \u0026quot;value lock-in\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe bizarro world of population ethics \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003cbr\u003e\n\u0026quot;Bait-and-switch\u0026quot; critique from a longtermist blogger: \u003ca href=\"https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9Y6Y6qoAigRC7A8eX/my-take-on-what-we-owe-the-future\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9Y6Y6qoAigRC7A8eX/my-take-on-what-we-owe-the-future\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eQuote: \u0026quot;For instance, I’m worried people will feel bait-and-switched if they get into EA via WWOTF then do an 80,000 Hours call or hang out around their EA university group and realize most people think AI risk is the biggest longtermist priority, many thinking this by a large margin.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHow long is your termist? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Could have seen this one coming. We discuss Will MacAskill's new book \"What We Owe the Future.\" ","date_published":"2022-10-03T10:45:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6c02f356-e380-4b16-a69c-d43b882b4746.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":59599306,"duration_in_seconds":3724}]},{"id":"49557cb4-fb21-4217-84d4-137505705a3e","title":"#43 - Artificial General Intelligence and the AI Safety debate","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/43","content_text":"Some people think that advanced AI is going to kill everyone. Some people don't. Who to believe?  Fortunately, Ben and Vaden are here to sort out the question once and for all. No need to think for yourselves after listening to this one, we've got you covered. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nHow well does math fit reality? Is that surprising? \nShould artificial general intelligence (AGI) be considered \"a person\"? \nHow could AI possibly \"go rogue?\"\nCan we know if current AI systems are being creative? \nIs misplaced AI fear hampering progress? \n\n\nReferences: \n\n\nThe Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics\nProhibition on autonomous weapons letter\nGoogle employee conversation with chat bot\nGary marcus on the Turing test\nMelanie Mitchell essay. \nDid MIRI give up? Their (half-sarcastic?) death with dignity strategy \nKerry Vaughan on slowing down AGI development. \n\n\nContact us \n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nWhich prompt would you send to GPT-3 in order to end the world? Tell us before you're turned into a paperclip over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eSome people think\u003c/a\u003e that advanced AI is going to kill everyone. \u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/opinion/superintelligent-artificial-intelligence.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eSome people don\u0026#39;t\u003c/a\u003e. Who to believe?  Fortunately, Ben and Vaden are here to sort out the question once and for all. No need to think for yourselves after listening to this one, we\u0026#39;ve got you covered. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss\u003c/strong\u003e: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow well does math fit reality? Is that surprising? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShould artificial general intelligence (AGI) be considered \u0026quot;a person\u0026quot;? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow could AI possibly \u0026quot;go rogue?\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCan we know if current AI systems are being creative? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs misplaced AI fear hampering progress? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/%7Ev1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://techlaw.uottawa.ca/bankillerai\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eProhibition on autonomous weapons letter\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eGoogle employee conversation with chat bot\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/nonsense-on-stilts\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eGary marcus on the Turing test\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMelanie Mitchell \u003ca href=\"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.12871.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eessay\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDid MIRI give up? Their (half-sarcastic?) \u003ca href=\"https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/j9Q8bRmwCgXRYAgcJ/miri-announces-new-death-with-dignity-strategy\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003edeath with dignity strategy\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKerry Vaughan on \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/KerryLVaughan/status/1545423249013620736\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eslowing down\u003c/a\u003e AGI development. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContact us\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhich prompt would you send to GPT-3 in order to end the world? Tell us before you\u0026#39;re turned into a paperclip over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Is advanced AI going to kill everyone? How close are we to building AGI? Is current AI creative? Put aside your philosophy textbooks, because we have the answers. ","date_published":"2022-08-28T15:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/49557cb4-fb21-4217-84d4-137505705a3e.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":65129742,"duration_in_seconds":4070}]},{"id":"15a2e62d-ea06-460f-9748-6dec393c8666","title":"#42 (C\u0026R, Chap 12+13) - Language and the Body-Mind Problem","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/42","content_text":"Ben and Vaden sit down to discuss what is possibly Popper's most confusing essay ever: Language and the Body-Mind Problem: A restatement of Interactionism. Determinism, causality, language, bodies, minds, and Ferris Buhler. What's not to like! Except for the terrible writing, spanning the entire essay. And before we get to that, we revolutionize the peer-review system in less than 10 minutes. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nProblems with the current peer-review system and how to improve it \nThe Mind-Body Problem\nHow chaos theory relates to determinism \nThe four functions of language\nWhy you don't argue with thermometers \nWhether Popper thinks we can build AGI \nWhy causality occurs at the level of ideas, not just of atoms \n\n\nReferences \n\n\nLink to the essay, which you should most definitely read for yourself. \nBen's call to abolish peer-review \nDiscrete Analysis Math Journal \nPachinko \nKarl Buhler's theory of language \n\n\nQuotes \n\n\nThis, I think, solves the so-called problem of 'other minds'. If we talk to other people, and especially if we argue\nwith them, then we assume (sometimes mistakenly) that they also argue: that they speak intentionally about\nthings, seriously wishing to solve a problem, and not merely behaving as if they were doing so. It has often been seen\nthat language is a social affair and that solipsism, and doubts about the existence of other minds, become\nselfcontradictory if formulated in a language. We can put this now more clearly. In arguing with other people (a thing\nwhich we have learnt from other people), for example about other minds, we cannot but attribute to them intentions,\nand this means, mental states. We do not argue with a thermometer. \n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\n\nOnce we understand the causal behaviour of the machine, we realize that its behaviour is purely expressive or\nsymptomatic. For amusement we may continue to ask the machine questions, but we shall not seriously argue with it--\nunless we believe that it transmits the arguments, both from a person and back to a person. \n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\n\nIf the behaviour of such a machine becomes very much like that of a man, then we may mistakenly believe that\nthe machine describes and argues; just as a man\"who does not know the working of a phonograph or radio may\nmistakenly think that it describes and argues. Yet an analysis of its mechanism teaches us that nothing of this kind\nhappens. The radio does not argue, although it expresses and signals.\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\n\nIt is true that the presence of Mike in my environment may be one of the physical 'causes' of my saying, 'Here is \nMike'. But if I say, 'Should this be your argument, then it is contradictory', because I have grasped or realized that it is\nso, then there was no physical 'cause' analogous to Mike; I do not need to hear or see your words in order to realize\nthat a certain theory (it does not matter whose) is contradictory. The analogy is not to Mike, but rather to my\nrealization that Mike is here.\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\n\nThe fear of obscurantism (or of being judged an obscurantist) has prevented most anti-obscurantists from saying\nsuch things as these. But this fear has produced, in the end, only obscurantism of another kind.\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\n\n\nWhen's the last time you argued with your thermometer? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com \n\nImage Credit: http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/modernlanguages/research/groups/linguistics/","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBen and Vaden sit down to discuss what is possibly Popper\u0026#39;s most confusing essay ever: \u003cem\u003eLanguage and the Body-Mind Problem: A restatement of Interactionism\u003c/em\u003e. Determinism, causality, language, bodies, minds, and Ferris Buhler. What\u0026#39;s not to like! Except for the terrible writing, spanning the entire essay. And before we get to that, we revolutionize the peer-review system in less than 10 minutes. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProblems with the current peer-review system and how to improve it \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Mind-Body Problem\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow chaos theory relates to determinism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe four functions of language\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy you don\u0026#39;t argue with thermometers \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether Popper thinks we can build AGI \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy causality occurs at the level of ideas, not just of atoms \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLink to \u003ca href=\"http://www.ditext.com/popper/lbp.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ethe essay\u003c/a\u003e, which you should most definitely read for yourself. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://benchugg.com/writing/peer-review/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ecall to abolish peer-review\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://discreteanalysisjournal.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDiscrete Analysis Math Journal\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachinko\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ePachinko\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organon_model\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eKarl Buhler\u0026#39;s theory of language\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis, I think, solves the so-called problem of \u0026#39;other minds\u0026#39;. If we talk to other people, and especially if we argue\u003cbr\u003e\nwith them, then we assume (sometimes mistakenly) that they also argue: that they speak intentionally about\u003cbr\u003e\nthings, seriously wishing to solve a problem, and not merely behaving as if they were doing so. It has often been seen\u003cbr\u003e\nthat language is a social affair and that solipsism, and doubts about the existence of other minds, become\u003cbr\u003e\nselfcontradictory if formulated in a language. We can put this now more clearly. In arguing with other people (a thing\u003cbr\u003e\nwhich we have learnt from other people), for example about other minds, we cannot but attribute to them intentions,\u003cbr\u003e\nand this means, mental states. We do not argue with a thermometer.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cbr\u003e\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOnce we understand the causal behaviour of the machine, we realize that its behaviour is purely expressive or\u003cbr\u003e\nsymptomatic. For amusement we may continue to ask the machine questions, but we shall not seriously argue with it--\u003cbr\u003e\nunless we believe that it transmits the arguments, both from a person and back to a person.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cbr\u003e\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIf the behaviour of such a machine becomes very much like that of a man, then we may mistakenly believe that\u003cbr\u003e\nthe machine describes and argues; just as a man\u0026quot;who does not know the working of a phonograph or radio may\u003cbr\u003e\nmistakenly think that it describes and argues. Yet an analysis of its mechanism teaches us that nothing of this kind\u003cbr\u003e\nhappens. The radio does not argue, although it expresses and signals.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIt is true that the presence of Mike in my environment may be one of the physical \u0026#39;causes\u0026#39; of my saying, \u0026#39;Here is \u003cbr\u003e\nMike\u0026#39;. But if I say, \u0026#39;Should this be your argument, then it is contradictory\u0026#39;, because I have grasped or realized that it is\u003cbr\u003e\nso, then there was no physical \u0026#39;cause\u0026#39; analogous to Mike; I do not need to hear or see your words in order to realize\u003cbr\u003e\nthat a certain theory (it does not matter whose) is contradictory. The analogy is not to Mike, but rather to my\u003cbr\u003e\nrealization that Mike is here.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe fear of obscurantism (or of being judged an obscurantist) has prevented most anti-obscurantists from saying\u003cbr\u003e\nsuch things as these. But this fear has produced, in the end, only obscurantism of another kind.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n- C\u0026amp;R, Chap 13\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhen\u0026#39;s the last time you argued with your thermometer? Tell us over at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eImage Credit\u003c/em\u003e: \u003ca href=\"http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/modernlanguages/research/groups/linguistics/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttp://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/modernlanguages/research/groups/linguistics/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We wrestle with chapter 12 and 13 of Conjectures and Refutations, on the topic of the mind-body problem, theories of language, determinism, and causality. This one is a real doozy folks. ","date_published":"2022-07-20T18:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/15a2e62d-ea06-460f-9748-6dec393c8666.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":48629968,"duration_in_seconds":3039}]},{"id":"8ed5f8dd-a838-4df0-8791-af0372ee011d","title":"#41 - Parenting, Epistemology, and EA (w/ Lulie Tanett) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/41","content_text":"We're joined by the wonderful Lulie Tanett to talk about effective altruism, pulling spouses out of burning buildings, and why you should prefer critical rationalism to Bayesianism for your mom's sake. Buckle up! \n\nWe discuss:\n\n\nLulie's recent experience at EA Global \nBayesianism and how it differs from critical rationalism \nCommon arguments in favor of Bayesianism \nTaking Children Seriously \nWhat it was like for Lulie growing up without going to school \nThe Alexander Technique, Internal Family Systems, Gendlin's Focusing, and Belief Reporting \n\n\nReferences \n\n\nEA Global\nTaking Children Seriously \nAlexander Technique\nInternal Family Systems\nGendlin Focusing\n\n\nSocial Media Everywhere \nFollow Lulie on Twitter @reasonisfun. Follow us at @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod, or on Youtube. \n\nReport your beliefs and focus your Gendlin's at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.  Special Guest: Lulie Tanett.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe\u0026#39;re joined by the wonderful Lulie Tanett to talk about effective altruism, pulling spouses out of burning buildings, and why you should prefer critical rationalism to Bayesianism for your mom\u0026#39;s sake. Buckle up! \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLulie\u0026#39;s recent experience at EA Global \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayesianism and how it differs from critical rationalism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCommon arguments in favor of Bayesianism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaking Children Seriously \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat it was like for Lulie growing up without going to school \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Alexander Technique, Internal Family Systems, Gendlin\u0026#39;s Focusing, and Belief Reporting \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.eaglobal.org/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEA Global\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.fitz-claridge.com/taking-children-seriously/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eTaking Children Seriously\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://expandingawareness.org/blog/what-is-the-alexander-technique/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAlexander Technique\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://ifs-institute.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eInternal Family Systems\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_(psychotherapy)\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eGendlin Focusing\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Media Everywhere\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cbr\u003e\nFollow Lulie on Twitter @reasonisfun. Follow us at @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod, or on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eYoutube\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eReport your beliefs and focus your Gendlin\u0026#39;s at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e.  \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Lulie Tanett.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We're joined by the wonderful Lulie Tanett to talk about effective altruism, pulling spouses out of burning buildings, and why you should prefer critical rationalism to Bayesianism for your mom's sake.","date_published":"2022-06-20T16:15:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/8ed5f8dd-a838-4df0-8791-af0372ee011d.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":77460808,"duration_in_seconds":4695}]},{"id":"fb63e5c1-91c1-4fd9-87e2-0b5d095949fe","title":"#40 - The Myth of The Framework: On the possibility of fruitful discussion ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/40","content_text":"Is there any possibility of fruitful dialogue with your mildly crazy, significantly intoxicated uncle at Thanksgiving dinner? We turn to Karl Popper's essay, The Myth of the Framework, to find out. Popper argues that it's wrong to assume that fruitful conversation is only possible among those who share an underlying framework of beliefs and assumptions. In fact, there's more to learn in difficult conversations which lack such a framework. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhat is The Myth of the Framework? \nThe relationship between the myth of the framework and epistemological and moral relativism\nModern examples of the myth, including Jon Haidt's recent Atlantic essay and Paul Graham's Keep your identity small. \nWhy there's more to learn from conversations where the participants disagree, and why conversations with too much agreement are uninteresting \nLinguistic relativism and the evolution of language as a refutation of the myth \nThe relationship between the myth of the framework and the Enigma of Reason\n\n\nQuotes \n\n\nI think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan. \n\n- Paul Graham, Keep your identity small\n\nThe story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past.\n\nIt’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.\n\n- Jonathan Haidt, Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid\n\nThe proponents of relativism put before us standards of mutual understanding which are unrealistically high. And when we fail to meet these standards, they claim that understanding is impossible. \n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34\n\nThe myth of the framework can be stated in one sentence, as follows. A rational and fruiful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.\n\nAs I have formulated it here, the myth sounds like a sober statement, or like a sensible warning to which we ought to pay attention in order to further rational discussion. Some people even think that what I describe as a myth is a logical principle, or based on a logical principle. I think, on the contrary, that it is not only a false statement, but also a vicious statement which, if widely believed, must undermine the unity of mankind, and so must greatly increase the likelihood of violence and of war. This is the main reason why I want to combat it, and to refute it.\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34\n\nAlthough I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: _I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strif, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words. This is why my topic is of some practical significance._\n\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34\n\nMy thesis is that logic neither underpins the myth of the framework nor its denial, but that we can try to learn from each other. Whether we succeed will depend largely on our goodwill, and to some extent also on our historical situation, and on our problem situation.\n\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 38\n\n\nReferences \n\n\nWhy the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid, by Jonathan Haidt\nKeep your identity small, by Paul Graham \nThe Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber \nGlenn Loury and Briahna Joy Grey\nNormal Science and its Dangers\n\n\nSocial media everywhere\nFollow us on twitter (@Incrementspod, @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg), and on youtube. \n\nTell us about your shaken framework at incrementspodcast@gmail.com \n\nImage: Cornelis Anthonisz (1505 – 1553) – The Fall of the Tower of Babel (1547)","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eIs there any possibility of fruitful dialogue with your mildly crazy, significantly intoxicated uncle at Thanksgiving dinner? We turn to Karl Popper\u0026#39;s essay, \u003cem\u003eThe Myth of the Framework\u003c/em\u003e, to find out. Popper argues that it\u0026#39;s wrong to assume that fruitful conversation is only possible among those who share an underlying framework of beliefs and assumptions. In fact, there\u0026#39;s more to learn in difficult conversations which lack such a framework. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWe discuss\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat is The Myth of the Framework? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe relationship between the myth of the framework and epistemological and moral relativism\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModern examples of the myth, including Jon Haidt\u0026#39;s recent \u003ca href=\"https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAtlantic essay\u003c/a\u003e and Paul Graham\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eKeep your identity small\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy there\u0026#39;s more to learn from conversations where the participants disagree, and why conversations with too much agreement are uninteresting \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLinguistic relativism and the evolution of language as a refutation of the myth \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe relationship between the myth of the framework and the Enigma of Reason\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people\u0026#39;s identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that\u0026#39;s part of their identity. By definition they\u0026#39;re partisan.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Paul Graham, Keep your identity small\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIt’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Jonathan Haidt, Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe proponents of relativism put before us standards of mutual understanding which are unrealistically high. And when we fail to meet these standards, they claim that understanding is impossible. \u003cbr\u003e\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe myth of the framework can be stated in one sentence, as follows. A rational and fruiful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAs I have formulated it here, the myth sounds like a sober statement, or like a sensible warning to which we ought to pay attention in order to further rational discussion. Some people even think that what I describe as a myth is a logical principle, or based on a logical principle. I think, on the contrary, that it is not only a false statement, but also a vicious statement which, if widely believed, must undermine the unity of mankind, and so must greatly increase the likelihood of violence and of war. This is the main reason why I want to combat it, and to refute it.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlthough I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: _I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement.\u003c/em\u003e Admittedly, disagreement \u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e lead to strif, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words. This is why my topic is of some practical significance._\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMy thesis is that logic neither underpins the myth of the framework nor its denial, but that we can try to learn from each other. Whether we succeed will depend largely on our goodwill, and to some extent also on our historical situation, and on our problem situation.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 38\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eWhy the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid\u003c/a\u003e, by Jonathan Haidt\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eKeep your identity small\u003c/a\u003e, by Paul Graham \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://smile.amazon.com/Enigma-Reason-Hugo-Mercier/dp/0674368304?sa-no-redirect=1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Enigma of Reason\u003c/a\u003e by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-pxokcOUHY\u0026ab_channel=TheGlennShow\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eGlenn Loury and Briahna Joy Grey\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Knowability_590/Week1/Normal%20Science%20and%20its%20Dangers.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eNormal Science and its Dangers\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial media everywhere\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nFollow us on twitter (@Incrementspod, @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg), and on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eyoutube\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTell us about your shaken framework at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eImage: Cornelis Anthonisz (1505 – 1553) – The Fall of the Tower of Babel (1547)\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We discuss \"The Myth of the Framework,\" an essay by Karl Popper arguing against the thesis that fruitful conversation is impossible unless you share a common framework of beliefs and assumptions. ","date_published":"2022-05-30T12:45:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/fb63e5c1-91c1-4fd9-87e2-0b5d095949fe.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":46039806,"duration_in_seconds":2731}]},{"id":"21d2237b-a7e7-48a7-a37e-4f10ed93f7c1","title":"#39 - The Enigma of Reason","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/39","content_text":"The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book The Enigma of Reason by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! \n\n*We discuss *\n\n\nReason as a social phenomenon \nThe two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others \nReason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories \nThe \"intellectualist\" vs the \"interactionist\" approach to reason \nNassim Taleb's notion of \"skin in the game\" \nThe consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche \nThe marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings \n\n\nQuotes: \n\n\nThe interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. \nEoR (pg. 332)\n\nIn our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. \nEoR (pg. 247)\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nDan Sperber's talk at the Santa Fe Institute\nImage credit: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama\n\n\nSocial media everywhere\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nSend a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eThe most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book \u003cem\u003eThe Enigma of Reason\u003c/em\u003e by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e*\u003cem\u003eWe discuss *\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReason as a social phenomenon \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe \u0026quot;intellectualist\u0026quot; vs the \u0026quot;interactionist\u0026quot; approach to reason \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNassim Taleb\u0026#39;s notion of \u0026quot;skin in the game\u0026quot; \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. \u003cbr\u003e\nEoR (pg. 332)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. \u003cbr\u003e\nEoR (pg. 247)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDan Sperber\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsjWo6K4w0\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003etalk\u003c/a\u003e at the Santa Fe Institute\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eImage credit: \u003ca href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial media everywhere\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSend a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"A discussion of The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. ","date_published":"2022-04-27T18:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/21d2237b-a7e7-48a7-a37e-4f10ed93f7c1.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":59999900,"duration_in_seconds":3719}]},{"id":"505f0920-f656-4b63-b205-de68e3826e51","title":"#38 (C\u0026R Series, Ch. 2) - Wittgenstein vs Popper ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/38","content_text":"We cover the spicy showdown between the two of the world's most headstrong philosophers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper.  In a dingy Cambridge classroom Wittgenstein once threatened Popper with a fireplace poker. What led to the disagreement? In this episode, we continue with the Conjectures and Refutations series by analyzing Chapter 2: The Nature of Philosophical Problems And Their Roots In Science, where Popper outlines his agreements and disagreements with Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nAre there philosophical problems? \nWhy are scientific disciplines divided as they are? \nHow much of philosophy is meaningless pseudo-babble? (Hint: Not none)\nWittgenstein's background and feud between him and Popper \nWittgenstein 1 and 2 (pre and post Tractatus)\nThe danger of philosophical inbreeding \nTwo of Popper's examples of philosophical problems:\n        1. Plato and the Crisis in Early Greek Atomism\n        2. Immanuel Kant's Problem of Knowledge.\nMusica universalis\nThe Problem of Change\nHow is knowledge possible?\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nMy first thesis is that every philosophy, and especially every philosophical ‘school’, is liable to degenerate in such a way that its problems become practically indistinguishable from pseudo-problems, and its cant, accordingly, practically indistinguishable from meaningless babble. This, I shall try to show, is a consequence of philosophical inbreeding. The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems which arise outside philosophy—in mathematics, for example, or in cosmology, or in politics, or in religion, or in social life. In other words my first thesis is this. Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted in urgent problems outside philosophy, and they die if these roots decay. \n\nC\u0026amp;R p.95\n\nHis question, we now know, or believe we know, should have been: ‘How are successful conjectures possible?’ And our answer, in the spirit of his Copernican Revolution, might, I suggest, be something like this: Because, as you said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes consciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. \n\nC\u0026amp;R p.128\n\n\nIf you were to threaten us with a common household object, what would it be? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com, or on twitter: @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe cover the spicy showdown between the two of the world\u0026#39;s most headstrong philosophers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper.  In a dingy Cambridge classroom Wittgenstein once threatened Popper with a fireplace poker. What led to the disagreement? In this episode, we continue with the Conjectures and Refutations series by analyzing Chapter 2: The Nature of Philosophical Problems And Their Roots In Science, where Popper outlines his agreements and disagreements with Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe discuss: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAre there philosophical problems? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy are scientific disciplines divided as they are? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow much of philosophy is meaningless pseudo-babble? (Hint: Not none)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWittgenstein\u0026#39;s background and feud between him and Popper \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWittgenstein 1 and 2 (pre and post Tractatus)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe danger of philosophical inbreeding \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTwo of Popper\u0026#39;s examples of philosophical problems:\n        1. Plato and the Crisis in Early Greek Atomism\n        2. Immanuel Kant\u0026#39;s Problem of Knowledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMusica universalis\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Problem of Change\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow is knowledge possible?\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMy first thesis is that every philosophy, and especially every philosophical ‘school’, is liable to degenerate in such a way that its problems become practically indistinguishable from pseudo-problems, and its cant, accordingly, practically indistinguishable from meaningless babble. This, I shall try to show, is a consequence of philosophical inbreeding. The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been \u003cem\u003ecompelled to philosophize by problems which arise outside philosophy\u003c/em\u003e—in mathematics, for example, or in cosmology, or in politics, or in religion, or in social life. In other words my first thesis is this. \u003cem\u003eGenuine philosophical problems are always rooted in urgent problems outside philosophy, and they die if these roots decay\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eC\u0026amp;R p.95\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHis question, we now know, or believe we know, should have been: ‘How are successful conjectures possible?’ And our answer, in the spirit of his Copernican Revolution, might, I suggest, be something like this: Because, as you said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes consciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eC\u0026amp;R p.128\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIf you were to threaten us with a common household object, what would it be? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e, or on twitter: @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"What made Wittgenstein so angry with Popper that he threatened him with a poker? We analyze Chapter 2 of C\u0026R to find out. ","date_published":"2022-03-08T12:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/505f0920-f656-4b63-b205-de68e3826e51.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":61213883,"duration_in_seconds":3825}]},{"id":"13c4c535-99eb-4d21-90c0-1a2af43199af","title":"#37 - Montessori Education w/ Matt Bateman","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/37","content_text":"We're joined today by Matt Bateman, one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, to discuss the Montessori method of education and how it compares to other teaching methodologies. Get ready for tiny furniture, putting on your jacket upside down, and teaching your toddler to make eggs benedict. We discuss: \n\n\nMaria Montessori \nWhat is a Montessori education (besides tiny furniture)? \nHow Montessori classrooms differ from regular ones \nWhy long periods of interrupted problem solving is important for a child's development\nHow Montessori integrates with technology \nDrawbacks of traditional methods of testing and grading, and how they might be amended \nThe importance of cultivating a love of work \nHow Matt wants to reform high school education\n\n\nBio: \n\nMatt is one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, a worldwide Montessori network. He runs Montessorium, Higher Ground’s think tank. He holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania, where he focused on the philosophy of science. Make sure to follow him on twitter for some golden education nuggets \n\nReferences: \n\n\nMatt on the Where We Go Next (formerly New Liberals) podcast. \nMontessorium\nVocational Training for the Soul: Bringing the Meaning of Work to Schools\nMatt's History of Education Course\n\n\nSocial media everywhere\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nSpecial Guest: Matt Bateman.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe\u0026#39;re joined today by Matt Bateman, one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, to discuss the Montessori method of education and how it compares to other teaching methodologies. Get ready for tiny furniture, putting on your jacket upside down, and teaching your toddler to make eggs benedict. We discuss: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaria Montessori \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat is a Montessori education (besides tiny furniture)? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow Montessori classrooms differ from regular ones \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy long periods of interrupted problem solving is important for a child\u0026#39;s development\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow Montessori integrates with technology \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDrawbacks of traditional methods of testing and grading, and how they might be amended \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe importance of cultivating a love of work \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow Matt wants to reform high school education\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBio\u003c/strong\u003e: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eMatt is one of the founders of \u003ca href=\"https://www.tohigherground.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eHigher Ground Education\u003c/a\u003e, a worldwide Montessori network. He runs Montessorium, Higher Ground’s think tank. He holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania, where he focused on the philosophy of science. Make sure to follow him on \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/mbateman\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003etwitter\u003c/a\u003e for some golden education nuggets \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://podcastaddict.com/episode/116009974\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMatt on the Where We Go Next\u003c/a\u003e (formerly New Liberals) podcast. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://montessorium.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMontessorium\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://thechalkboardreview.com/latest/vocational-training-for-the-soul-bringing-the-meaning-of-work-to-schools\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eVocational Training for the Soul: Bringing the Meaning of Work to Schools\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://montessorium.com/courses/the-history-of-education\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMatt\u0026#39;s History of Education Course\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial media everywhere\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Matt Bateman.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We're joined by Matt Bateman, the director of the Montessori think tank Montessorium, to talk all things education. \r\n","date_published":"2022-02-16T11:45:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/13c4c535-99eb-4d21-90c0-1a2af43199af.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":78505272,"duration_in_seconds":4906}]},{"id":"b062dc7c-cdda-4356-9dc3-6fd881a78d25","title":"#36 - Analyzing Effective Altruism as a Social Movement","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/36","content_text":"In what is hopefully the last installment of Vaden and Ben debate Effective Altruism, we ask if EA lies on the cultishness (yes, that's a word) spectrum.  We discuss: \n\n\nThe potential pitfall of having goodness as a core value\nAspects of Effective Altruism (EA) that put it on the cultishness spectrum\nDoes EA focus on good over truth?\nBen's experience with EA\nMaking criticism a core value \nHow does one resist the allure of groupthink? \nHow to (mis)behave at parties \nHow would one create a movement which doesn't succumb to cult-like dynamics?\nWeird ideas as junk food \n\n\nError Correction intro segment\n\n\nScott Alexander pointing out that Ivermectin works indirectly via:\n\n\nThere’s a reason the most impressive ivermectin studies came from parts of the world where worms are prevalent, he says. Parasites suppress the immune system, making it more difficult for the human body to fight off viruses. Thus, getting rid of worm infections makes it easier for COVID-19 patients to bounce back from the virus.\n\nSee full post below and summary news article here \n\n\nCzechoslovakia was not a part of the USSR\n @lukeconibear pointing out some climate models and data are publicly available. See for instance\n\n\nGoddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) Chem model: https://github.com/geoschem/geos-chem\nCommunity Earth System Model (CESM): https://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM\nEnergy Exascale Earth System model: https://github.com/E3SM-Project/E3SM\n\n@PRyan pointing out we were confused about the difference between economic growth, division of labour, and free trade \n\n\nJoin the movement at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \n\nFollow us on twitter at @IncrementsPod and on Youtube.  ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eIn what is hopefully the last installment of Vaden and Ben debate Effective Altruism, we ask if EA lies on the cultishness (yes, that\u0026#39;s a word) spectrum.  We discuss: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe potential pitfall of having goodness as a core value\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAspects of Effective Altruism (EA) that put it on the cultishness spectrum\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoes EA focus on good over truth?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026#39;s experience with EA\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaking criticism a core value \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow does one resist the allure of groupthink? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow to (mis)behave at parties \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow would one create a movement which doesn\u0026#39;t succumb to cult-like dynamics?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeird ideas as junk food \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eError Correction intro segment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott Alexander pointing out that Ivermectin works indirectly via:\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThere’s a reason the most impressive ivermectin studies came from parts of the world where worms are prevalent, he says. Parasites suppress the immune system, making it more difficult for the human body to fight off viruses. Thus, getting rid of worm infections makes it easier for COVID-19 patients to bounce back from the virus.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSee full post below and summary news article \u003ca href=\"https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/everyone-was-wrong-about-ivermectin/ar-AAQRURP\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCzechoslovakia was not a part of the USSR\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e @lukeconibear pointing out some climate models and data are publicly available. See for instance\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) Chem model: \u003ca href=\"https://github.com/geoschem/geos-chem\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://github.com/geoschem/geos-chem\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCommunity Earth System Model (CESM): \u003ca href=\"https://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnergy Exascale Earth System model: \u003ca href=\"https://github.com/E3SM-Project/E3SM\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://github.com/E3SM-Project/E3SM\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e@PRyan pointing out we were confused about the difference between economic growth, division of labour, and free trade \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eJoin the movement at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFollow us on twitter at \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/IncrementsPod\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e@IncrementsPod\u003c/a\u003e and on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eYoutube\u003c/a\u003e.  \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Vaden and Ben debate Effective Altruism and provocatively ask \"Is EA a cult?\" and come up with a resounding... Kinda. Maybe. It's hard to say. ","date_published":"2022-01-26T20:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/b062dc7c-cdda-4356-9dc3-6fd881a78d25.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":55645978,"duration_in_seconds":3375}]},{"id":"65a9f039-b895-42a8-9671-9e5670fda797","title":"#35 - Climate Change III: Fossil Fuels","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/35","content_text":"Come experience the thrill of the shill as we discuss the somewhat-controversial natural resource called \"fossil fuels\".  In this episode, we drill deep into opto-pessimist Vaclav Smil's excellent book Oil: A Beginner's Guide, in what is possibly our only episode to feature heterodox Russian-Ukrainian science, subterranean sound waves, and that goop lady -  what's her name? It's unbelievable, right?\n\nWe discuss:\n\n\nThe science behind fossil fuels: How they're made, found, processed, and used \nEnergy transitions and the shale gas revolution \nGlobal oil dependence and human rights \nThe environmental costs of fossil fuels\nWill we reach Peak Oil? \nWhy natural resources aren't milkshakes \nThe future of fossil fuels\n\n\n(Note to Big Oil: Please send shilling fees to incrementspodcast@gmail.com)\n\nReferences\n\n\nVaclav Smil: We Must Leave Growth Behind \nVaclav Smil: Growth must end. Our economist friends don’t seem to realise that\nOil: A Beginner's Guide\nAbiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia\n\n\nSocial media everywhere\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nQuotes\n\nModern life now begins and ends amidst the plethora of plastics whose synthesis began with feedstocks derived from oil - because hospitals teem with them. Surgical gloves, flexible tubing, catheters, IV containers, sterile packaging, trays, basins, bed pans and rails, thermal blankets and lab ware: naturally, you are not aware of these surroundings when a few hours or a few days old, but most of us will become all too painfully aware of them six, seven or eight decades later. And that recital was limited only to common hospital items made of polyvinylchloride; countless other items fashioned from a huge variety of plastics are in our cars, aeroplanes, trains, homes, offices and factories. \n\n\nOil: A Beginner's Guide, p.10\n\n\nA free market has not been one of the hallmarks of the 150 years of oil’s commercial history. The oil business has seen repeated efforts to fix product prices by controlling either the level of crude oil extraction or by dominating its transportation and processing, or by monopolizing all of these aspects. The first infamous, and successful, attempt to do so was the establishment of Standard Oil in Cleveland in 1870. The Rockefeller brothers (John D. and William) and their partners used secretive acquisitions and deals with railroad companies to gain the control of oil markets first in Cleveland, then in the Northeast, and eventually throughout the US. By 1904 what was now known as the Standard Oil Trust controlled just over 90% of the country’s crude oil production and 85% of all sales.\n\n\nOil: A Beginner's Guide, p.32\n\n\nPhotochemical smog was first observed in Los Angeles in the 1940s and its origins were soon traced primarily to automotive emissions. As car use progressed around the world al] major urban areas began to experience seasonal (Toronto, Paris) or near-permanent (Bangkok, Cairo) levels of smog, whose effects range from impaired health (eye irritation, lung problems) to damage to materials, crops and coniferous trees. A recent epidemiological study in California also demonstrated that the lung function of children living within 500m of a freeway was seriously impaired and that this adverse effect (independent of overall regional air quality) could result in significant lung capacity deficits later in life. Extreme smog levels now experienced in Beijing, New Delhi and other major Chinese and Indian cities arise from the combination of automotive traffic and large-scale combustion of coal in electricity-generating plants and are made worse by periodic temperature inversions that limit the depth of the mixing layer and keep the pollutants near the ground.\n\n\nOil: A Beginner's Guide, p.50\n","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eCome experience the thrill of the shill as we discuss the somewhat-controversial natural resource called \u0026quot;fossil fuels\u0026quot;.  In this episode, we drill deep into opto-pessimist Vaclav Smil\u0026#39;s excellent book \u003cem\u003eOil: A Beginner\u0026#39;s Guide\u003c/em\u003e, in what is possibly our only episode to feature heterodox Russian-Ukrainian science, subterranean sound waves, and that goop lady -  what\u0026#39;s her name? It\u0026#39;s unbelievable, right?\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe discuss:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe science behind fossil fuels: How they\u0026#39;re made, found, processed, and used \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnergy transitions and the shale gas revolution \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlobal oil dependence and human rights \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe environmental costs of fossil fuels\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWill we reach Peak Oil? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy natural resources aren\u0026#39;t milkshakes \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe future of fossil fuels\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e(Note to Big Oil: Please send shilling fees to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/vaclav-smil-on-the-need-to-abandon-growth.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eVaclav Smil: We Must Leave Growth Behind\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/21/vaclav-smil-interview-growth-must-end-economists\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eVaclav Smil: Growth must end. Our economist friends don’t seem to realise that\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://smile.amazon.com/Oil-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851685715?sa-no-redirect=1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eOil: A Beginner\u0026#39;s Guide\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAbiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial media everywhere\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModern life now begins and ends amidst the plethora of plastics whose synthesis began with feedstocks derived from oil - because hospitals teem with them. Surgical gloves, flexible tubing, catheters, IV containers, sterile packaging, trays, basins, bed pans and rails, thermal blankets and lab ware: naturally, you are not aware of these surroundings when a few hours or a few days old, but most of us will become all too painfully aware of them six, seven or eight decades later. And that recital was limited only to common hospital items made of polyvinylchloride; countless other items fashioned from a huge variety of plastics are in our cars, aeroplanes, trains, homes, offices and factories.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOil: A Beginner\u0026#39;s Guide, p.10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA free market has not been one of the hallmarks of the 150 years of oil’s commercial history. The oil business has seen repeated efforts to fix product prices by controlling either the level of crude oil extraction or by dominating its transportation and processing, or by monopolizing all of these aspects. The first infamous, and successful, attempt to do so was the establishment of Standard Oil in Cleveland in 1870. The Rockefeller brothers (John D. and William) and their partners used secretive acquisitions and deals with railroad companies to gain the control of oil markets first in Cleveland, then in the Northeast, and eventually throughout the US. By 1904 what was now known as the Standard Oil Trust controlled just over 90% of the country’s crude oil production and 85% of all sales.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOil: A Beginner\u0026#39;s Guide, p.32\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhotochemical smog was first observed in Los Angeles in the 1940s and its origins were soon traced primarily to automotive emissions. As car use progressed around the world al] major urban areas began to experience seasonal (Toronto, Paris) or near-permanent (Bangkok, Cairo) levels of smog, whose effects range from impaired health (eye irritation, lung problems) to damage to materials, crops and coniferous trees. A recent epidemiological study in California also demonstrated that the lung function of children living within 500m of a freeway was seriously impaired and that this adverse effect (independent of overall regional air quality) could result in significant lung capacity deficits later in life. Extreme smog levels now experienced in Beijing, New Delhi and other major Chinese and Indian cities arise from the combination of automotive traffic and large-scale combustion of coal in electricity-generating plants and are made worse by periodic temperature inversions that limit the depth of the mixing layer and keep the pollutants near the ground.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOil: A Beginner\u0026#39;s Guide, p.50\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","summary":"A dive into the science and politics of fossil fuels, guided by the inimitable Vaclav Smil. ","date_published":"2021-11-29T10:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/65a9f039-b895-42a8-9671-9e5670fda797.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":47569966,"duration_in_seconds":2868}]},{"id":"3ce49b47-4808-497b-8e42-da038bf646bc","title":"#34 - Climate Change II: Growth, Degrowth, Reactions, Responses","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/34","content_text":"In this episode Ben convinces Vaden to become a degrowther. We plan how to live out the rest of our lives on an organic tomato farm in Canada in December, sewing our own clothes and waxing our own candles. Step away from the thermostat Jimmy. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nThe degrowth movement \nThe basics of economic growth, and why it's good for developing economies in particular\nHow growth enables resilience in the face of environmental disasters\nWhy the environment is in better shape than you think \nAvailability bias and our tendency to think everything is falling apart \nThe decoupling of economic growth and carbon emissions\nEnergy dense production and energy portfolios\n\n\nAnd we respond to some of your criticism of the previous episode, including:\n\n\nApocalyptic environmental predictions been happening for a while? Really? \nNumber of annual cold deaths exceed the number of annual heat deaths? Really? \nYour previous episode was very human-centric, and failed to address the damage humans are causing to the environment. What say you? \nAre we right wing crypto-fascists? (Answer: Maybe, successfully dodged the question)\n\n\nSocial media everywhere\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg,  @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM one of us on twitter, or send an email to incrementspodcast@gmail.com to get a link\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nTwo natural experiments on curtailing economic growth. Energy Crunch, and\nthe effect of Covid-19 on developing countries (world bank)\n10x more cold deaths than heat deaths. Original study in the Lancet. Chilling Effect by Scott Alexander. \nDecoupling of economic growth and pollution by Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough institute. \nAir Pollution Trends data (EPA)\nNumber of deaths from natural disasters (Our World in Data). Original data taken from the EMDAT Natural Disasters database. \nIncrease in global canopy cover\n99 Good News Stories in 2018 you probably didn't hear about\n...and 2019\n...and 2020 (also sign up for the FutureCrunch newsletter!)\nThe Environmental Kuznets curves\n\n\nQuotes\n\nOn Degrowth \n\nThis would be a way of life based on modest material and energy needs but nevertheless rich in other dimensions – a life of frugal abundance. It is about creating an economy based on sufficiency, knowing how much is enough to live well, and discovering that enough is plenty.\n\nIn a degrowth society we would aspire to localise our economies as far and as appropriately as possible. This would assist with reducing carbon-intensive global trade, while also building resilience in the face of an uncertain and turbulent future.\n\nWherever possible, we would grow our own organic food, water our gardens with water tanks, and turn our neighbourhoods into edible landscapes as the Cubans have done in Havana. As my friend Adam Grubb so delightfully declares, we should “eat the suburbs”, while supplementing urban agriculture with food from local farmers’ markets.\n\n- Samuel Alexander, Life in a 'degrowth' economy, and why you might actually enjoy it\n\nIt would be nice to hear it straight for once. Global warming is real, it’s here, and it’s mind-bogglingly dangerous. How bad it gets—literally, the degree—depends on how quickly the most profligate countries rein in their emissions. Averting catastrophe will thus require places like the United States and Canada to make drastic cutbacks, bringing their consumption more closely in line with the planetary average. Such cuts can be made more or less fairly, and the richest really ought to pay the most, but the crucial thing is that they are made. Because, above all, stopping climate change means giving up on growth. That will be hard. Not only will our standards of living almost certainly drop, but it’s likely that the very quality of our society—equality, safety, and trust—will decline, too. That’s not something to be giddy about, but it’s still a price that those of us living in affluent countries should prepare to pay. Because however difficult it is to slow down, flooding Bangladesh cannot be an option. In other words, we can and should act. It’s just going to hurt.\n\n- Daniel Immerwahr, Growth vs the Climate\n\nOn Perennial Apocalypticism\n\nMy offices were so cold I couldn't concentrate, and my staff were typing with gloves on. I pleaded with Jimmy to set the thermostats at 68 degrees, but it didn't do any good. \n- Paul Sabin, quoting Rosalynn Carter in The Bet\n\nMostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the United Nations environmental program, told delegates that if the nations of the world continued their present policies, they would face by the turn of the century ''an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.''\n- New York Times, 1982\n\nA senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of \"eco-refugees\", threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.\"\n- AP News, 1989\n\nOn Environmental Conservation\n\nIt’s not the case that humankind has failed to conserve habitat. By 2019, an area of Earth larger than the whole of Africa was protected, an area that is equivalent to 15 percent of Earth’s land surface. The number of designated protected areas in the world has grown from 9,214 in 1962 to 102,102 in 2003 to 244,869 in 2020.\n\n- Michael Shellenburger, Apocalypse Never, p.75\n\nThanks to habitat protection and targeted conservation efforts, many beloved species have been pulled from the brink of extinction, including albatrosses, condors, manatees, oryxes, pandas, rhinoceroses, Tasmanian devils, and tigers; according to the ecologist Stuart Pimm, the overall rate of extinctions has been reduced by 75 percent.\n\n- Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now, p.160\n\nOn Environmental Optimism\n\n\nFollowing China’s ban on ivory last year, 90% of Chinese support it, ivory demand has dropped by almost half, and poaching rates are falling in places like Kenya. WWF\nThe population of wild tigers in Nepal was found to have nearly doubled in the last nine years, thanks to efforts by conservationists and increased funding for protected areas. Independent\nDeforestation in Indonesia fell by 60%, as a result of a ban on clearing peatlands, new educational campaigns and better law enforcement. Ecowatch\n\n\nSee the remaining 294 good news stories here, here, and here\n\nSet your thermostats to 68, put those gloves on, and send an email over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eIn this episode Ben convinces Vaden to become a degrowther. We plan how to live out the rest of our lives on an organic tomato farm in Canada in December, sewing our own clothes and waxing our own candles. Step away from the thermostat Jimmy. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe discuss: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe degrowth movement\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe basics of economic growth, and why it\u0026#39;s good for developing economies in particular\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow growth enables resilience in the face of environmental disasters\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhy the environment is in better shape than you think \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAvailability bias and our tendency to think everything is falling apart \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe decoupling of economic growth and carbon emissions\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnergy dense production and energy portfolios\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAnd we respond to some of your criticism of the previous episode, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApocalyptic environmental predictions been happening for a while? Really? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNumber of annual cold deaths exceed the number of annual heat deaths? Really? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYour previous episode was very human-centric, and failed to address the damage humans are causing to the environment. What say you? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAre we right wing crypto-fascists? (Answer: Maybe, successfully dodged the question)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial media everywhere\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg,  @VadenMasrani\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck us out on youtube at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCome join our discord server! DM one of us on twitter, or send an email to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e to get a link\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTwo natural experiments on curtailing economic growth. \u003ca href=\"https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/energy-crunch-hits-global-recovery-as-winter-approaches-report-121102000021_1.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEnergy Crunch\u003c/a\u003e, and\nthe \u003ca href=\"https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/799701589552654684/pdf/Costs-and-Trade-Offs-in-the-Fight-Against-the-COVID-19-Pandemic-A-Developing-Country-Perspective.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eeffect of Covid-19 on developing countries (world bank)\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e10x more cold deaths than heat deaths. \u003ca href=\"https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext\u0026sa=D\u0026source=docs\u0026ust=1636434110138000\u0026usg=AOvVaw0Uas83UjktfZhIqzNOyMTQ\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eOriginal study\u003c/a\u003e in the Lancet. \u003ca href=\"https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/chilling-effects?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDgwNTU5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0MjYwOTE3NCwiXyI6InVqQ3VpIiwiaWF0IjoxNjM0Nzg2MDY1LCJleHAiOjE2MzQ3ODk2NjUsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04OTEyMCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.oIH0tvBYkHK5PfbmmqLdNVO0-U46kRy54CSjZlEC0ec\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eChilling Effect\u003c/a\u003e by Scott Alexander. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/absolute-decoupling-of-economic-growth-and-emissions-in-32-countries\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDecoupling of economic growth and pollution\u003c/a\u003e by Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough institute. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAir Pollution Trends data (EPA)\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eNumber of deaths from natural disasters\u003c/a\u003e (Our World in Data). Original data taken from the \u003ca href=\"https://www.emdat.be/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEMDAT Natural Disasters database\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIncrease in global canopy cover\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://medium.com/future-crunch/99-good-news-stories-you-probably-didnt-hear-about-in-2018-cc3c65f8ebd0\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e99 Good News Stories in 2018 you probably didn\u0026#39;t hear about\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e...\u003ca href=\"https://futurecrun.ch/99-good-news-2019\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eand 2019\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e...\u003ca href=\"https://futurecrun.ch/99-good-news-2020\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eand 2020\u003c/a\u003e (also sign up for the FutureCrunch newsletter!)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEnvironmental Kuznets curves\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOn Degrowth\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis would be a way of life based on modest material and energy needs but nevertheless rich in other dimensions – a life of frugal abundance. It is about creating an economy based on sufficiency, knowing how much is enough to live well, and discovering that enough is plenty.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn a degrowth society we would aspire to localise our economies as far and as appropriately as possible. This would assist with reducing carbon-intensive global trade, while also building resilience in the face of an uncertain and turbulent future.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWherever possible, we would grow our own organic food, water our gardens with water tanks, and turn our neighbourhoods into edible landscapes as the Cubans have done in Havana. As my friend Adam Grubb so delightfully declares, we should “eat the suburbs”, while supplementing urban agriculture with food from local farmers’ markets.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Samuel Alexander, \u003ca href=\"https://theconversation.com/life-in-a-degrowth-economy-and-why-you-might-actually-enjoy-it-32224\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eLife in a \u0026#39;degrowth\u0026#39; economy, and why you might actually enjoy it\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIt would be nice to hear it straight for once. Global warming is real, it’s here, and it’s mind-bogglingly dangerous. How bad it gets—literally, the degree—depends on how quickly the most profligate countries rein in their emissions. Averting catastrophe will thus require places like the United States and Canada to make drastic cutbacks, bringing their consumption more closely in line with the planetary average. Such cuts can be made more or less fairly, and the richest really ought to pay the most, but the crucial thing is that they are made. Because, above all, stopping climate change means giving up on growth. That will be hard. Not only will our standards of living almost certainly drop, but it’s likely that the very quality of our society—equality, safety, and trust—will decline, too. That’s not something to be giddy about, but it’s still a price that those of us living in affluent countries should prepare to pay. Because however difficult it is to slow down, flooding Bangladesh cannot be an option. In other words, we can and should act. It’s just going to hurt.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Daniel Immerwahr, \u003ca href=\"https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/growth-vs-the-climate\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eGrowth vs the Climate\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOn Perennial Apocalypticism\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMy offices were so cold I couldn\u0026#39;t concentrate, and my staff were typing with gloves on. I pleaded with Jimmy to set the thermostats at 68 degrees, but it didn\u0026#39;t do any good.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cbr\u003e\n- Paul Sabin, quoting Rosalynn Carter in \u003ca href=\"https://books.google.com/books?id=nVd_AAAAQBAJ\u0026printsec=frontcover#v=onepage\u0026q\u0026f=false\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Bet\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the United Nations environmental program, told delegates that if the nations of the world continued their present policies, they would face by the turn of the century \u0026#39;\u0026#39;an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.\u0026#39;\u0026#39;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n- \u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/world/un-ecology-parley-opens-amid-gloom.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eNew York Times, 1982\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of \u0026quot;eco-refugees\u0026quot;, threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n- \u003ca href=\"https://web.archive.org/web/20201113001053/https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAP News, 1989\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOn Environmental Conservation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIt’s not the case that humankind has failed to conserve habitat. By 2019, an area of Earth larger than the whole of Africa was protected, an area that is equivalent to 15 percent of Earth’s land surface. The number of designated protected areas in the world has grown from 9,214 in 1962 to 102,102 in 2003 to 244,869 in 2020.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Michael Shellenburger, \u003cem\u003eApocalypse Never\u003c/em\u003e, p.75\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThanks to habitat protection and targeted conservation efforts, many beloved species have been pulled from the brink of extinction, including albatrosses, condors, manatees, oryxes, pandas, rhinoceroses, Tasmanian devils, and tigers; according to the ecologist Stuart Pimm, the overall rate of extinctions has been reduced by 75 percent.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- Steven Pinker, \u003cem\u003eEnlightenment Now\u003c/em\u003e, p.160\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOn Environmental Optimism\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFollowing China’s ban on ivory last year, 90% of Chinese support it, ivory demand has dropped by almost half, and poaching rates \u003ca href=\"https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/conservation/china-has-banned-ivory-but-has-the-african-elephant-poaching-crisis-actually-been-stemmed/news-story/b086f6a0e61acfcc15abeed18f899136\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eare falling\u003c/a\u003e in places like Kenya. \u003ca href=\"https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/what-impact-chinas-ivory-ban\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eWWF\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe population of wild tigers in Nepal was found to have nearly doubled in the last nine years, thanks to efforts by conservationists and increased funding for protected areas. \u003ca href=\"https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/tigers-nepal-double-wwf-conservation-big-cats-wildlife-trade-a8551271.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eIndependent\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeforestation in Indonesia fell by 60%, as a result of a ban on clearing peatlands, new educational campaigns and better law enforcement. \u003ca href=\"https://www.ecowatch.com/indonesia-deforestation-2595918463.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEcowatch\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSee the remaining 294 good news stories \u003ca href=\"https://medium.com/future-crunch/99-good-news-stories-you-probably-didnt-hear-about-in-2018-cc3c65f8ebd0\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"https://futurecrun.ch/99-good-news-2019\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e, and \u003ca href=\"https://futurecrun.ch/99-good-news-2020\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSet your thermostats to 68, put those gloves on, and send an email over to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Round two of climate change! We talk about the degrowth movement, why economic growth is good for wellbeing, and respond to some of the criticism we received in the previous episode. ","date_published":"2021-11-09T21:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/3ce49b47-4808-497b-8e42-da038bf646bc.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":39642592,"duration_in_seconds":3303}]},{"id":"0b609559-ecf5-4343-abcf-8345b031e016","title":"#33 (C\u0026R Series, Ch. 3) - Instrumentalism and Essentialism","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/33","content_text":"Galileo vs the church - whose side are you on? Today we discuss Chapter 3 of Conjectures and Refutations, Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge. This is a juicy one, as Popper manages to simultaneously attack both philosophers and physicists, as he takes on instrumentalism and essentialism, two alternatives to his 'conjecture and refutation' approach to knowledge. We discuss: \n\n\nThe conflict between Galileo and the church \nWhat is instrumentalism, and how did it become popular? \nHow instrumentalism is still in vogue in many physics departments\nThe Problem of Universals\nThe essentialist approach to science \nStars, air, cells, and lightning \n\"What is\" vs \"How does\" questions \nThe relationship between essentialism and language, and its influence on politics. \nViewing words as instruments\n\n\nSee More:\n\n\nInstrumentalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism\nEssentialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism\nThe problem of universals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals\n\n\nQuotes:\nFew if any of the physicists who have now accepted the instrumentalist view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley realize that they have accepted a philosophical theory. Nor do they realize that they have broken with the Galilean tradition. On the contrary, most of them think that they have kept clear of philosophy; and most of them no longer care anyway. What they now care about, as physicists, is (a) mastery of the mathematical formalism, i.e. of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care for nothing else.\n-- C\u0026amp;R, Page 134  \n\nThus my criticism of essentialism does not aim at establishing the non-existence of essences; it merely aims at showing the obscurantist character of the role played by the idea of essences in the Galilean philosophy of science (down to Maxwell, who was inclined to believe in them but whose work destroyed this belief). In other words my criticism tries to show that, whether essences exist or not, the belief in them does not help us in any way and indeed is likely to hamper us; so that there is no reason why the scientist should assume their existence. \n-- C\u0026amp;R, Page 141. \n\nBut they are more than this, as can be seen from the fact that we submit them to severe tests by trying to deduce from them some of the regularities of the known world of common experience i.e. by trying to explain these regularities. And these attempts to explain the known by the unknown (as I have described them elsewhere) have immeasurably extended the realm of the known. They have added to the facts of our everyday world the invisible air, the antipodes, the circulation of the blood, the worlds of the telescope and the microscope, of electricity, and of tracer atoms showing us in detail the movements of matter within living bodies. All these things are far from being mere instruments: they are witness to the intellectual conquest of our world by our minds.\n\nBut there is another way of looking at these matters. For some, science is still nothing but glorified plumbing, glorified gadgetmaking—‘mechanics’; very useful, but a danger to true culture, threatening us with the domination of the near-illiterate (of Shakespeare’s ‘mechanicals’). It should never be mentioned in the same breath as literature or the arts or philosophy. Its professed discoveries are mere mechanical inventions, its theories are instruments—gadgets again, or perhaps super-gadgets. It cannot and does not reveal to us new worlds behind our everyday world of appearance; for the physical world is just surface: it has no depth. The world is just what it appears to be. Only the scientific theories are not what they appear to be. A scientific theory neither explains nor describes the world; it is nothing but an instrument.\n-- C\u0026amp;R, Page 137-8.  \n\nWhat's the essential nature of this podcast? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eGalileo vs the church - whose side are you on? Today we discuss Chapter 3 of Conjectures and Refutations, \u003cem\u003eThree Views Concerning Human Knowledge\u003c/em\u003e. This is a juicy one, as Popper manages to simultaneously attack both philosophers and physicists, as he takes on instrumentalism and essentialism, two alternatives to his \u0026#39;conjecture and refutation\u0026#39; approach to knowledge. We discuss: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe conflict between Galileo and the church \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat is instrumentalism, and how did it become popular? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow instrumentalism is still in vogue in many physics departments\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Problem of Universals\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe essentialist approach to science \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStars, air, cells, and lightning \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026quot;What is\u0026quot; vs \u0026quot;How does\u0026quot; questions \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe relationship between essentialism and language, and its influence on politics. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eViewing words as instruments\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSee More\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInstrumentalism: \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEssentialism: \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe problem of universals: \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cem\u003eFew if any of the physicists who have now accepted the instrumentalist view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley realize that they have accepted a philosophical theory. Nor do they realize that they have broken with the Galilean tradition. On the contrary, most of them think that they have kept clear of philosophy; and most of them no longer care anyway. What they now care about, as physicists, is (a) mastery of the mathematical formalism, i.e. of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care for nothing else.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n-- C\u0026amp;R, Page 134  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThus my criticism of essentialism does not aim at establishing the non-existence of essences; it merely aims at showing the obscurantist character of the role played by the idea of essences in the Galilean philosophy of science (down to Maxwell, who was inclined to believe in them but whose work destroyed this belief). In other words my criticism tries to show that, whether essences exist or not, the belief in them does not help us in any way and indeed is likely to hamper us; so that there is no reason why the scientist should assume their existence.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cbr\u003e\n-- C\u0026amp;R, Page 141. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBut they are more than this, as can be seen from the fact that we submit them to severe tests by trying to deduce from them some of the regularities of the known world of common experience i.e. by trying to explain these regularities. And these attempts to explain the known by the unknown (as I have described them elsewhere) have immeasurably extended the realm of the known. They have added to the facts of our everyday world the invisible air, the antipodes, the circulation of the blood, the worlds of the telescope and the microscope, of electricity, and of tracer atoms showing us in detail the movements of matter within living bodies. All these things are far from being mere instruments: they are witness to the intellectual conquest of our world by our minds.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBut there is another way of looking at these matters. For some, science is still nothing but glorified plumbing, glorified gadgetmaking—‘mechanics’; very useful, but a danger to true culture, threatening us with the domination of the near-illiterate (of Shakespeare’s ‘mechanicals’). It should never be mentioned in the same breath as literature or the arts or philosophy. Its professed discoveries are mere mechanical inventions, its theories are instruments—gadgets again, or perhaps super-gadgets. It cannot and does not reveal to us new worlds behind our everyday world of appearance; for the physical world is just surface: it has no depth. The world is just what it appears to be. Only the scientific theories are not what they appear to be. A scientific theory neither explains nor describes the world; it is nothing but an instrument.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n-- C\u0026amp;R, Page 137-8.  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat\u0026#39;s the essential nature of this podcast? Tell us at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We discuss Popper's delicious criticism of two dominant approaches to knowledge in physics and philosophy departments: instrumentalism and essentialism. \r\n","date_published":"2021-10-25T02:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/0b609559-ecf5-4343-abcf-8345b031e016.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":38566346,"duration_in_seconds":2410}]},{"id":"f0edc4e0-fc1b-4f77-b405-564f571e6444","title":"#32 - Climate Change I: Initial Thought-Crimes","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/32","content_text":"After the immensely positive response to our previous episode on the Weinstein brothers -  thanks @robertwiblin! - we thought we would keep giving the people what they want, and what they want is a long discussion on climate change. Specifically, the subject for today is: \"The State of the Climate Debate\". We touch on: \n\n\nThe near perfect partisan split on climate change\nWill there be a climate apocalypse?\nThe promise of nuclear energy as a solution\nThe limitations of renewables\nEnergy portfolios \nThe rebound effect\nDegrowth economics\nActivist tactics and fear mongering\nWhether The Environment has become A Deity in environmentalist circles\n\n\nWe expect very little pushback on this episode. \n\nReferences\n\n\nApocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. \nGreta Thunberg encouraging you to panic\nThunberg's double crossing of the Atlantic in sailboat\nThe Rebound Effect\n\n\nQuotes\n\nBut real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.\n\n-- Naomi Klein in the Nation\n\nEven if nuclear power were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign, it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into.\n\n-- Amory Lovins, quoted from Forbes piece by Michael Shellenberger\n\nSend us panic-induced email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eAfter the immensely positive response to our previous episode on the Weinstein brothers -  thanks @robertwiblin! - we thought we would keep giving the people what they want, and what they want is a long discussion on climate change. Specifically, the subject for today is: \u0026quot;The State of the Climate Debate\u0026quot;. We touch on: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe near perfect partisan split on climate change\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWill there be a climate apocalypse?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe promise of nuclear energy as a solution\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe limitations of renewables\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnergy portfolios \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe rebound effect\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDegrowth economics\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eActivist tactics and fear mongering\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhether The Environment has become A Deity in environmentalist circles\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe expect very little pushback on this episode. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://smile.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691?sa-no-redirect=1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eApocalypse Never\u003c/a\u003e by Michael Shellenberger. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjsLm5PCdVQ\u0026ab_channel=GuardianNews\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eGreta Thunberg encouraging you to panic\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThunberg\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_Greta_Thunberg\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003edouble crossing of the Atlantic in sailboat\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277338331_The_rebound_effects_of_switching_to_vegetarianism_A_microeconomic_analysis_of_Swedish_consumption_behavior\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Rebound Effect\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBut real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e-- \u003ca href=\"https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/capitalism-vs-climate/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eNaomi Klein in the Nation\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEven if nuclear power were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign, it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e-- Amory Lovins, quoted from \u003ca href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/14/the-real-reason-they-hate-nuclear-is-because-it-means-we-dont-need-renewables/?sh=17c63299128f\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eForbes piece\u003c/a\u003e by Michael Shellenberger\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSend us panic-induced email at \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We dip our toes into the heated (heating?) waters of the climate debate. Sorry Greta. ","date_published":"2021-10-05T22:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/f0edc4e0-fc1b-4f77-b405-564f571e6444.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":48971440,"duration_in_seconds":3060}]},{"id":"9a7fbc7d-82e1-4c28-88d8-29bc61cd55db","title":"#31 - The Fall of the Weinstein Republic","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/31","content_text":"Today we take your twitter questions before doing a deep dive into the Weinstein fiasco (Bret and Eric, not Harvey.) If you haven't heard of the Weinstein's before, then we suggest you run away before we drag you down into a rabbit hole filled with acronyms, anti-vaxxers, and theories of ... everything? anything? literally anything at all?\n\nTopics we touch:\n\n\nWe take your twitter questions!\n\n\nFilos with a weird one:  I have a weird one that could be fun. It seems to me that the idea that we could upload our minds to a computer is nonsense. I agree with Kastrup that what we would upload is a description of our minds and a description of something is not that something. And it seems this desire to immortality is the nerd's reinvention of God via AGI, and heaven via uploading a mind to a silicon substrate. Where do you fall in this mind uploading fantasy? possible? Religious impulse? Reasonable?\nDan would like us to talk about:  The pervasive skepticism that seems to run through much the Popperian and Crit Rat communities regarding nonhuman animals’ capacity to suffer, particularly factory farmed animals.\nKarl is interested in:   I'm interested in the meta-question of why that issue seems to split the community in two. Why hasn't one view become the dogmatic truth yet as it seems to have in most other communities?\n\nWTF is up with Bret and Eric Weinstein\nThe allure of reflexive contrarianism \nThe (horrible! awful! stop it!) tendency of academics to use convoluted language to impress their non-peers\nThe notion of \"secular gurus\" and what distinguishes a secular guru from a person with a large platform\nAnd the special responsibility of researchers to communicate clearly. \n\n\nReferences:\n\nAnimal Suffering\n\n\nBruce Nielson's blog post on whether animals experience qualia, and his second on animal emotions. We mostly discuss the first. \n\n\nWeinsteins \n\n\nEric Weinstein's excellent first appearance on Sam Harris's podcast \nGeometric Unity website\nGeometric Unity pdf\nSee Timothy Nguyen on the Wright Show and Decoding the Gurus for an excellent overview of the whole scandal\n... and check out Timothy Nguyen on Eigenbros for a deep dive into the technical nitty-gritty\nNorbert Blum's original paper purporting to show that P is not equal to NP. \nA nice answer on Stack Exchange detailing why Blum's proof was wrong. \n\n\nQuotes: \n\n\nEvery intellectual has a very special responsibility. He has the privilege and the opportunity of studying. In return, he owes it to his fellow men (or 'to society') to represent the results of his study as simply, clearly and modestly as he can. The worst thing that intellectuals can do - the cardinal sin - is to try to set themselves up as great prophets vis-à-vis their fellow men and to impress them with puzzling philosophies. Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he can do so.\nKarl Popper, Against Big Words\n\n\nWhat would you say to your half million twitter followers who want to know your opinion on everything? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eToday we take your twitter questions before doing a deep dive into the Weinstein fiasco (Bret and Eric, not Harvey.) If you haven\u0026#39;t heard of the Weinstein\u0026#39;s before, then we suggest you run away before we drag you down into a rabbit hole filled with acronyms, anti-vaxxers, and theories of ... everything? anything? literally anything at all?\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTopics we touch:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWe take your twitter questions!\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/iamFilos/status/1424025239370047488\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eFilos with a weird one: \u003c/a\u003e \u003cem\u003eI have a weird one that could be fun. It seems to me that the idea that we could upload our minds to a computer is nonsense. I agree with Kastrup that what we would upload is a description of our minds and a description of something is not that something. And it seems this desire to immortality is the nerd\u0026#39;s reinvention of God via AGI, and heaven via uploading a mind to a silicon substrate. Where do you fall in this mind uploading fantasy? possible? Religious impulse? Reasonable?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/danieljhageman/status/1424008345309126660\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDan would like us to talk about: \u003c/a\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe pervasive skepticism that seems to run through much the Popperian and Crit Rat communities regarding nonhuman animals’ capacity to suffer, particularly factory farmed animals.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/krlwlzn/status/1424025137481912330\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eKarl is interested in: \u003c/a\u003e  \u003cem\u003eI\u0026#39;m interested in the meta-question of why that issue seems to split the community in two. Why hasn\u0026#39;t one view become the dogmatic truth yet as it seems to have in most other communities?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWTF is up with Bret and Eric Weinstein\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe allure of reflexive contrarianism \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe (horrible! awful! stop it!) tendency of academics to use convoluted language to impress their non-peers\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe notion of \u0026quot;secular gurus\u0026quot; and what distinguishes a secular guru from a person with a large platform\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnd the special responsibility of researchers to communicate clearly. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnimal Suffering\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBruce Nielson\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://fourstrands.org/2021/04/15/do-animals-experience-qualia/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eblog post\u003c/a\u003e on whether animals experience qualia, and his \u003ca href=\"https://fourstrands.org/2021/06/08/the-current-science-of-animal-emotions/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003esecond\u003c/a\u003e on animal emotions. We mostly discuss the first. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeinsteins\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEric Weinstein\u0026#39;s excellent \u003ca href=\"https://samharris.org/podcasts/faith-in-reason/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003efirst appearance\u003c/a\u003e on Sam Harris\u0026#39;s podcast \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeometric Unity \u003ca href=\"https://geometricunity.org/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ewebsite\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeometric Unity \u003ca href=\"https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric_Unity-Draft-April-1st-2021.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epdf\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSee Timothy Nguyen \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j86WIfRfPDk\u0026ab_channel=Bloggingheads.tv\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eon the Wright Show\u003c/a\u003e and \u003ca href=\"https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-episode-interview-with-tim-nguyen-on-geometric-unity\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDecoding the Gurus\u003c/a\u003e for an excellent overview of the whole scandal\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e... and check out Timothy Nguyen on \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o31cGMENDTI\u0026ab_channel=Eigenbros\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eEigenbros\u003c/a\u003e for a deep dive into the technical nitty-gritty\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorbert Blum\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03486v1.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eoriginal paper\u003c/a\u003e purporting to show that P is not equal to NP. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA \u003ca href=\"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38803/is-norbert-blums-2017-proof-that-p-ne-np-correct\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003enice answer\u003c/a\u003e on Stack Exchange detailing why Blum\u0026#39;s proof was wrong. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvery intellectual has a very special responsibility. He has the privilege and the opportunity of studying. In return, he owes it to his fellow men (or \u0026#39;to society\u0026#39;) to represent the results of his study as simply, clearly and modestly as he can. The worst thing that intellectuals can do - the cardinal sin - is to try to set themselves up as great prophets vis-à-vis their fellow men and to impress them with puzzling philosophies. Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he can do so.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nKarl Popper, \u003ca href=\"http://www.the-rathouse.com/shortreviews/Against_Big_Words.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAgainst Big Words\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat would you say to your half million twitter followers who want to know your opinion on everything? Tell us at \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We had a semi-serious conversation about environmentalism in store for you, but we got trapped by the WIN (Weinsteinian institutional narrative). Like a black hole, the epic meltdown of Weinstein's and the confrontation with Tim Nguyen -- apparently the only adult in the room -- pulled us in, and we couldn't avoid talking about it. ","date_published":"2021-09-14T10:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/9a7fbc7d-82e1-4c28-88d8-29bc61cd55db.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":54507156,"duration_in_seconds":3291}]},{"id":"d6a3bee2-95f2-4d67-bdfc-67519b8b4605","title":"#30 - Let's all just have a good cry (w/ Christofer Lövgren) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/30","content_text":"Christofer Lövgren, host of the marvelous Do Explain podcast and world's most famous Swede (second perhaps only to that Alfred fellow with the peace prize), joins us on the pod to teach us how podcasting is really done. And how to pronounce his last name. When we're not all sobbing, we touch on: \n\n\nDoes Deutschian epistemology give us with Free Will? \nShould one identify as a critical rationalist? \nDoes membership in a community, or identification with a label, affect our ability to give and receive criticism? \nHow has reading Deutsch and Popper changed our lives? \nCan trauma get stored in the body? \nHow often do we cry? \n\n\nCheck out Chris on twitter (@ReachChristofer) and Do Subscribe to Do Explain.\n\nReferences:\n\n\nThe Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch\nBehave by Robert Sapolsky \nLecture on Depression by Sapolsky\nDo Explain episode with Chris and Matt Goldenberg on emotional processing\nTemple Grandin discussing the \"black-hat\" horse. \nBody Keeps the Score  by  Bessel van der Kolk\nSir Peter Brian Medawar whom Richard Dawkins referred to as 'the wittiest of all scientific writers'. \n\n\nBlow your nose, dry your eyes, and send us a tear-stained email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Special Guest: Christofer Lövgren.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eChristofer Lövgren, host of the marvelous \u003ca href=\"https://www.doexplain.org/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDo Explain\u003c/a\u003e podcast and world\u0026#39;s most famous Swede (second perhaps only to that Alfred fellow with the peace prize), joins us on the pod to teach us how podcasting is really done. And how to pronounce his last name. When we\u0026#39;re not all sobbing, we touch on: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoes Deutschian epistemology give us with Free Will? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShould one identify as a critical rationalist? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoes membership in a community, or identification with a label, affect our ability to give and receive criticism? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow has reading Deutsch and Popper changed our lives? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCan trauma get stored in the body? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow often do we cry? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eCheck out Chris on twitter (@ReachChristofer) and Do Subscribe to \u003ca href=\"https://www.doexplain.org/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDo Explain\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Infinity-Explanations-Transform-World/dp/0143121359?sa-no-redirect=1\u0026pldnSite=1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Beginning of Infinity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e by David Deutsch\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078?sa-no-redirect=1\u0026pldnSite=1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eBehave\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e by Robert Sapolsky \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc\u0026ab_channel=Stanford\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eLecture on Depression\u003c/a\u003e by Sapolsky\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.doexplain.org/episodes/24-emotional-processing-with-matt-goldenberg\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDo Explain episode\u003c/a\u003e with Chris and Matt Goldenberg on emotional processing\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTemple Grandin \u003ca href=\"https://www.lakeforest.edu/news/still-thinking-in-pictures-a-conversation-with-temple-grandin\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ediscussing\u003c/a\u003e the \u0026quot;black-hat\u0026quot; horse. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Body-Keeps-Score-Healing-Trauma/dp/0143127748?sa-no-redirect=1\u0026pldnSite=1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eBody Keeps the Score\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e  by  Bessel van der Kolk\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Medawar\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eSir Peter Brian Medawar\u003c/a\u003e whom Richard Dawkins referred to as \u0026#39;the wittiest of all scientific writers\u0026#39;. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBlow your nose, dry your eyes, and send us a tear-stained email at \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Christofer Lövgren.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Christofer Lövgren joins us for a wide ranging discussion on community, criticism, and crying.","date_published":"2021-08-30T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/d6a3bee2-95f2-4d67-bdfc-67519b8b4605.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":83367872,"duration_in_seconds":5954}]},{"id":"3cd18700-daac-4eb2-b515-e8022a526436","title":"#29 - Some Scattered Thoughts on Superforecasting","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/29","content_text":"We're back! Apologies for the delay, but Vaden got married and Ben was summoned to be an astronaut on the next billionaire's vacation to Venus. This week we're talking about how to forecast the future (with this one simple and easy trick! Astrologers hate them!). Specifically, we're diving into Philip Tetlock's work on Superforecasting. \n\nSo what's the deal? Is it possible to \"harness the wisdom of the crowd to forecast world events\"? Or is the whole thing just a result of sloppy statistics? We believe the latter is likely to be true with probability 64.9% - no, wait, 66.1%. \n\nIntro segment:\n\n\"The Sentience Debate\": The moral value of shrimps, insects, and oysters\n\nRelevant timestamps:\n\n\n10:05: \"Even if there's only a one in one hundred chance, or one in one thousand chance, that insects are sentient given current information, and if we're killing trillions or quadrillions of insects in ways that are preventable or avoidable or that we can in various ways mitigate that harm... then we should consider that possibility.\"\n25:47: \"If you're all going to work on pain in invertebrates, I pity you in many respects... In my previous work, I was used to running experiments and getting a clear answer, and I could say what these animals do and what they don't do. But when I started to think about what they might be feeling, you meet this frustration, that after maybe about 15 years of research, if someone asks me do they feel pain, my answer is 'maybe'... a strong 'maybe'... you cannot discount the possibility.\"\n46:47: \"It is not 100% clear to me that plants are non sentient. I do think that animals including insects are much more likely to be sentient than plants are, but I would not have a credence of zero that plants are sentient.\"\n1:01:59:  \"So the hard problem I would like to ask the panel is: If you were to compare the moral weight of one ant to the moral weight of one human, what ratio would you put? How much more is a human worth than an ant? 100:1? 1000:1? 10:1? Or maybe 1:1? ... Let's start with Jamie.\"\n\n\nMain References:\n\n\nSuperforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction - Wikipedia\nHow Policymakers Can Improve Crisis Planning\nThe Good Judgment Project - Wikipedia\nExpert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?: Tetlock, Philip E.: 9780691128719: Books - Amazon.ca\n\n\nAdditional references mentioned in the episode:\n\n\nThe Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives\nThe Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable - Wikipedia\nBook Review: Superforecasting | Slate Star Codex\nPandemic Uncovers the Limitations of Superforecasting – We Are Not Saved\nMy Final Case Against Superforecasting (with criticisms considered, objections noted, and assumptions buttressed) – We Are Not Saved\n\n\nUse your Good Judgement and send us email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe\u0026#39;re back! Apologies for the delay, but Vaden got married and Ben was summoned to be an astronaut on the next billionaire\u0026#39;s vacation to Venus. This week we\u0026#39;re talking about how to forecast the future (with this one simple and easy trick! Astrologers \u003cem\u003ehate\u003c/em\u003e them!). Specifically, we\u0026#39;re diving into Philip Tetlock\u0026#39;s work on \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforecasting:_The_Art_and_Science_of_Prediction\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eSuperforecasting\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSo what\u0026#39;s the deal? Is it possible to \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Judgment_Project\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u0026quot;harness the wisdom of the crowd to forecast world events\u0026quot;\u003c/a\u003e? Or is the whole thing just a result of sloppy statistics? We believe the latter is likely to be true with probability 64.9% - no, wait, 66.1%. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntro segment:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.facebook.com/103405457813911/videos/254164216090604\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u0026quot;The Sentience Debate\u0026quot;: The moral value of shrimps, insects, and oysters\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eRelevant timestamps:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10:05:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026quot;Even if there\u0026#39;s only a one in one hundred chance, or one in one thousand chance, that insects are sentient given current information, and if we\u0026#39;re killing trillions or quadrillions of insects in ways that are preventable or avoidable or that we can in various ways mitigate that harm... then we should consider that possibility.\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e25:47:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026quot;If you\u0026#39;re all going to work on pain in invertebrates, I pity you in many respects... In my previous work, I was used to running experiments and getting a clear answer, and I could say what these animals do and what they don\u0026#39;t do. But when I started to think about what they might be feeling, you meet this frustration, that after maybe about 15 years of research, if someone asks me do they feel pain, my answer is \u0026#39;maybe\u0026#39;... a strong \u0026#39;maybe\u0026#39;... you cannot discount the possibility.\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e46:47:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026quot;It is not 100% clear to me that plants are non sentient. I do think that animals including insects are much more likely to be sentient than plants are, but I would not have a credence of zero that plants are sentient.\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1:01:59:\u003c/strong\u003e  \u0026quot;So the hard problem I would like to ask the panel is: If you were to compare the moral weight of one ant to the moral weight of one human, what ratio would you put? How much more is a human worth than an ant? 100:1? 1000:1? 10:1? Or maybe 1:1? ... Let\u0026#39;s start with Jamie.\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMain References:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforecasting:_The_Art_and_Science_of_Prediction\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eSuperforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction - Wikipedia\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-10-13/better-crystal-ball\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eHow Policymakers Can Improve Crisis Planning\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Judgment_Project\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Good Judgment Project - Wikipedia\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.ca/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/dp/0691128715\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eExpert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?: Tetlock, Philip E.: 9780691128719: Books - Amazon.ca\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAdditional references mentioned in the episode:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Drunkard%27s_Walk\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Drunkard\u0026#39;s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_the_Highly_Improbable\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable - Wikipedia\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/04/book-review-superforecasting/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eBook Review: Superforecasting | Slate Star Codex\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://wearenotsaved.com/2020/04/18/pandemic-uncovers-the-ridiculousness-of-superforecasting/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ePandemic Uncovers the Limitations of Superforecasting – We Are Not Saved\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://wearenotsaved.com/2020/05/30/my-final-case-against-superforecasting-with-criticisms-considered-objections-noted-and-assumptions-buttressed/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMy Final Case Against Superforecasting (with criticisms considered, objections noted, and assumptions buttressed) – We Are Not Saved\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eUse your Good Judgement and send us email at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We discuss Philip Tetlock's work on Superforecasting.","date_published":"2021-08-16T14:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/3cd18700-daac-4eb2-b515-e8022a526436.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":33224972,"duration_in_seconds":2720}]},{"id":"99e52867-1669-4c24-ad72-bcedab880c07","title":"#28 (C\u0026R Series, Ch. 9) - Why is Logic Applicable to Reality?","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/28","content_text":"Why do logic and mathematics work so well in the world? Why do they seem to describe reality? Why do they they enable us to design circuit boards, build airplanes, and listen remotely to handsome and charming podcast hosts who rarely go off topic? \n\nTo answer these questions, we dive into Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?. \n\nBut before we get to that, we touch on some of the good stuff: evolutionary psychology, cunnilingus, and why Robin is better than Batman. \n\nReferences: \n\n\nConjectures and Refutations, Chapter 9: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality? https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ\u0026amp;printsec=frontcover\u0026amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r\u0026amp;cad=0#v=onepage\u0026amp;q\u0026amp;f=false\nBen on Do Explain with Christofer Lovgren\nDebate between Spelke and Pinker\nVery Bad Wizards discussing the paper \"Oral Sex as Infidelity detection\" (episode, paper). \nSturgeon's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law#:~:text=Sturgeon%27s%20law%20(or%20Sturgeon%27s%20revelation,science%20fiction%20author%20and%20critic.\nEugene Wigner's paper The Unreasonable Effective of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. \nStoic versus Aristotelian logic. Here is a nice discussion of the differences between the two. \nRob Wiblin's tweet that all probabilities are subjective probabilities (in an otherwise very good thread). \nBuhler's three functions of language: (i) Expressive, (ii) Signaling, and (iii) Descriptive. See the \"Organon Model\". \nPiece on Brett Weinstein and Ivermectin.\n\n\nQuotes:\n\n“The indescribable world I have in mind is, of course, the world I have ‘in my mind’—the world which most psychologists (except the behaviourists) attempt to describe, somewhat unsuccessfully, with the help of what is nothing but a host of metaphors taken from the languages of physics, of biology, and of social life.” \n\n“In so far as a calculus is applied to reality, it loses the character of a logical calculus and becomes a descriptive theory which may be empirically refutable; and in so far as it is treated as irrefutable, i.e. as a system of logically true formulae, rather than a descriptive scientific theory, it is not applied to reality.” \n\nSend us the most bizarre use of evolutionary psychology you've seen at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWhy do logic and mathematics work so well in the world? Why do they seem to describe reality? Why do they they enable us to design circuit boards, build airplanes, and listen remotely to handsome and charming podcast hosts who rarely go off topic? \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTo answer these questions, we dive into Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: \u003cem\u003eWhy are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBut before we get to that, we touch on some of the good stuff: evolutionary psychology, cunnilingus, and why Robin is better than Batman. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReferences\u003c/strong\u003e: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConjectures and Refutations, Chapter 9: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality? \u003ca href=\"https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ\u0026printsec=frontcover\u0026source=gbs_ge_summary_r\u0026cad=0#v=onepage\u0026q\u0026f=false\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ\u0026amp;printsec=frontcover\u0026amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r\u0026amp;cad=0#v=onepage\u0026amp;q\u0026amp;f=false\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.doexplain.org/episodes/311-nonuniversal-explainers-with-ben-chugg\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eBen on Do Explain with Christofer Lovgren\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8\u0026ab_channel=HarvardUniversity\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDebate\u003c/a\u003e between Spelke and Pinker\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVery Bad Wizards discussing the paper \u0026quot;Oral Sex as Infidelity detection\u0026quot; (\u003ca href=\"https://www.verybadwizards.com/216\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eepisode\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"https://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Pham-Shackelford-PAID-2013.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epaper\u003c/a\u003e). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSturgeon\u0026#39;s Law: \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law#:%7E:text=Sturgeon%27s%20law%20(or%20Sturgeon%27s%20revelation,science%20fiction%20author%20and%20critic\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law#:~:text=Sturgeon%27s%20law%20(or%20Sturgeon%27s%20revelation,science%20fiction%20author%20and%20critic\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEugene Wigner\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/%7Ev1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epaper\u003c/a\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe Unreasonable Effective of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStoic versus Aristotelian logic. \u003ca href=\"https://www.uvm.edu/%7Ejbailly/courses/196Stoicism/notes/StoicLogic.html\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eHere\u003c/a\u003e is a nice discussion of the differences between the two. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRob Wiblin\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1345800502093766657\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003etweet\u003c/a\u003e that all probabilities are subjective probabilities (in an otherwise very good thread). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuhler\u0026#39;s three functions of language: (i) Expressive, (ii) Signaling, and (iii) Descriptive. See the \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organon_model#:%7E:text=B%C3%BChler\u0026#x27;s%20work%20influenced%20Roman%20Jakobson,the%20representation%20function%20(Darstellungsfunktion)\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u0026quot;Organon Model\u0026quot;\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/06/youre-probably-not-galileo-scientific-advance-rarely-comes-from-lone-contrarian-outsiders/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ePiece\u003c/a\u003e on Brett Weinstein and Ivermectin.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e“The indescribable world I have in mind is, of course, the world I have ‘in my mind’—the world which most psychologists (except the behaviourists) attempt to describe, somewhat unsuccessfully, with the help of what is nothing but a host of metaphors taken from the languages of physics, of biology, and of social life.” \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e“In so far as a calculus is applied to reality, it loses the character of a logical calculus and becomes a descriptive theory which may be empirically refutable; and in so far as it is treated as irrefutable, i.e. as a system of logically true formulae, rather than a descriptive scientific theory, it is not applied to reality.” \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSend us the most bizarre use of evolutionary psychology you\u0026#39;ve seen at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We discuss Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?","date_published":"2021-07-19T01:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/99e52867-1669-4c24-ad72-bcedab880c07.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":44221753,"duration_in_seconds":3685}]},{"id":"1f4cf1ee-82ab-4ca0-b6b3-aa627887ae7d","title":"#27 - A Conversation with Marianne","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/27","content_text":"There are many overused internet keywords that could be associated with this conversation, but none of them quite seem right. So here's a poem instead:\n\nThe Ogre does what ogres can,\nDeeds quite impossible for Man,\nBut one prize is beyond his reach:\nThe Ogre cannot master speech.\n\nAbout a subjugated plain,\nAmong its desperate and slain,\nThe Ogre stalks with hands on hips,\nWhile drivel gushes from his lips\n\n- August 1968, W H Auden\n\nSend us an email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com\n\nImage from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-august-1968-red-square-protest-and-its-legacy\n\nAudio updated:  05/07/2021","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eThere are many overused internet keywords that could be associated with this conversation, but none of them quite seem right. So here\u0026#39;s a poem instead:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Ogre does what ogres can,\u003cbr\u003e\nDeeds quite impossible for Man,\u003cbr\u003e\nBut one prize is beyond his reach:\u003cbr\u003e\nThe Ogre cannot master speech.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbout a subjugated plain,\u003cbr\u003e\nAmong its desperate and slain,\u003cbr\u003e\nThe Ogre stalks with hands on hips,\u003cbr\u003e\nWhile drivel gushes from his lips\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBG68YkOQOg\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAugust 1968, W H Auden\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSend us an email at \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eImage from \u003ca href=\"https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-august-1968-red-square-protest-and-its-legacy\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ehttps://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-august-1968-red-square-protest-and-its-legacy\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAudio updated:  05/07/2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Marianne recounts her summer. That's all we'll say for now.","date_published":"2021-06-28T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/1f4cf1ee-82ab-4ca0-b6b3-aa627887ae7d.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":87467049,"duration_in_seconds":7288}]},{"id":"ff921187-d5c1-4185-915c-0525e9c17b89","title":"#26 - Moral Philosophy Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/26","content_text":"In a rare turn of events, it just so happened that one or perhaps both of your charming co-hosts spewed a bit of nonsense about Derek Parfit in a previous episode, and we had to bring in a heavy hitter to sort us out. Today we're joined by friend of the podcast Mr. Dan Hageman, immuno-oncologist by day and aspiring ethicist by night, who gently takes us to task for misunderstanding Parfit and the role of ethical theorizing, and for ignoring the suffering of pigeons. The critiques land, and convince Vaden that we should dedicate our resources towards providing safe and affordable contraception for Apex predators.\n\nWe cover all sorts of ground in this episode, including: \n\n\nMistakes we made in our thought experiments episode\nIs it possible to over-theorize? \nWild animal suffering\nDon't fish eat other fish?!\nFeline family planning\nAntinatalism\nMoral Cluelessness\nPopulation ethics and the repugnant conclusion (Ha!) \nSimilarities and differences between theoretical physics and theoretical philosophy\n\n\nReferences:\n\n\nOrganization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS)\nLukas Gloor's post on population ethics\nWild Animal Initiative\nPigeon Contraception (yes, really)\nHilary Greaves on moral cluelessness (talk+transcript, paper)\nBetter Never to Have Been by David Benatar. \n\n\nDan Hageman is a biomed engineer who works in immuno-oncology, but in his not-so-free time strives to sell himself as an amateur philosopher and aspiring 'Effective Altruist'. He spends much of this time trying to keep up with impactful charities focused on the reduction and/or prevention of extreme suffering, and in 2020 helped co-found a hopefully burgeoning side project called ‘Match for More’. He would like to note that the IPAs are to blame for any and all errors/misapprehensions made during his lively discussion with epic friends and podcast hosts, Ben and Vaden.\n\nHow many insect lives are morally equivalent to one human life? Send us your best guess at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. We'll reveal the correct answer in episode 1000.  \n\nUpdate 13/06/21: The original title of this episode was \"Meta-ethics Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)\"Special Guest: Dan Hageman.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eIn a rare turn of events, it just so happened that one or perhaps both of your charming co-hosts spewed a bit of nonsense about Derek Parfit in a previous episode, and we had to bring in a heavy hitter to sort us out. Today we\u0026#39;re joined by friend of the podcast Mr. Dan Hageman, immuno-oncologist by day and aspiring ethicist by night, who gently takes us to task for misunderstanding Parfit and the role of ethical theorizing, and for ignoring the suffering of pigeons. The critiques land, and convince Vaden that we should dedicate our resources towards providing safe and affordable contraception for Apex predators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe cover all sorts of ground in this episode, including: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMistakes we made in our thought experiments episode\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs it possible to over-theorize? \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWild animal suffering\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xHMyvtUbhM\u0026ab_channel=moviequotescentral\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eDon\u0026#39;t fish eat other fish?!\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeline family planning\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAntinatalism\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoral Cluelessness\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopulation ethics and the repugnant conclusion (Ha!) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimilarities and differences between theoretical physics and theoretical philosophy\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.preventsuffering.org/#:%7E:text=The%20Organisation%20for%20the%20Prevention,suffering%20of%20all%20sentient%20beings.\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eOrganization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering\u003c/a\u003e (OPIS)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLukas Gloor\u0026#39;s \u003ca href=\"https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/HyeTgKBv7DjZYjcQT/the-problem-with-person-affecting-views\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epost\u003c/a\u003e on population ethics\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eWild Animal Initiative\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/pigeon-contraception\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003ePigeon Contraception\u003c/a\u003e (yes, really)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHilary Greaves on moral cluelessness (\u003ca href=\"https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LdZcit8zX89rofZf3/evidence-cluelessness-and-the-long-term-hilary-greaves\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003etalk+transcript\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"https://philpapers.org/rec/GREC-38\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003epaper\u003c/a\u003e)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://smile.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265?sa-no-redirect=1\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eBetter Never to Have Been\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e by David Benatar. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDan Hageman is a biomed engineer who works in immuno-oncology, but in his not-so-free time strives to sell himself as an amateur philosopher and aspiring \u0026#39;Effective Altruist\u0026#39;. He spends much of this time trying to keep up with impactful charities focused on the reduction and/or prevention of extreme suffering, and in 2020 helped co-found a hopefully burgeoning side project called ‘\u003ca href=\"https://www.matchformore.org/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMatch for More\u003c/a\u003e’. He would like to note that the IPAs are to blame for any and all errors/misapprehensions made during his lively discussion with epic friends and podcast hosts, Ben and Vaden.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHow many insect lives are morally equivalent to one human life? Send us your best guess at \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e. We\u0026#39;ll reveal the correct answer in episode 1000.  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUpdate 13/06/21: The original title of this episode was \u0026quot;Meta-ethics Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Dan Hageman.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"Dan Hageman joins us to celebrate our completely fair treatment of Derek Parfit, to utterly agree with our use of thought experiments, and to deem us the world's most renown meta-ethicists.","date_published":"2021-06-08T12:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/ff921187-d5c1-4185-915c-0525e9c17b89.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":89851192,"duration_in_seconds":5615}]},{"id":"1a5864a9-d5d7-43af-b8d6-e78dcb1d90c3","title":"#25 - Mathematical Explanation with Mark Colyvan","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/25","content_text":"We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore \n\n\nHow mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences\nCounterfactual reasoning in mathematics \nIntra versus extra mathematical explanation \nAlternate logics \nMathematical thought experiments \nThe use of probability in the courtroom\n\n\nReferences: \n\n\nThe Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner. \nProofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos. \n\n\nMark Colyvan is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Special Guest: Mark Colyvan.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCounterfactual reasoning in mathematics \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIntra versus extra mathematical explanation \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlternate logics \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMathematical thought experiments \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe use of probability in the courtroom\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eReferences: \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/%7Ev1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eThe Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences\u003c/a\u003e by Eugene Wigner. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#:%7E:text=Proofs%20and%20Refutations%3A%20The%20Logic,characteristic%20defined%20for%20the%20polyhedron.\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eProofs and Refutations\u003c/a\u003e by Imre Lakatos. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"http://www.colyvan.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eMark Colyvan\u003c/a\u003e is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Mark Colyvan.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"We're joined by professor Mark Colyvan to talk about the philosophy of mathematics, logic, and thought experiments. ","date_published":"2021-05-24T14:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/1a5864a9-d5d7-43af-b8d6-e78dcb1d90c3.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":61259231,"duration_in_seconds":7657}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-8500607","title":"#24 - Popper's Three Worlds","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/24","content_text":"This episode begins with a big announcement! Ben has officially become a cat person, and is now Taking Cats Seriously. Vaden follows up with some news of his own, before diving into the main subject for today's episode - Popper's Three Worlds.\nIn this episode we discuss:The TCS parenting movement Chesto's tweet to DeutschHow Popper's Three Worlds differs from Deutsch's Things/Qualia/Abstractions classificationWould prime numbers exist if humans didn't exist?What constitutes reality?The existence of non-physical entities and the reality of abstractions  Having a quick glance at the following wikipedia pages will help ground the conversation:Formal systems Formal languagesModular ArithmeticRules of inferenceAlternative LogicsErrata:Somewhere Vaden says English is a formal language. Nope definitely not - English is natural language, which is distinct from a formal language.  Send us your best guess for whether or not we're real at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.  ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eThis episode begins with a big announcement! Ben has officially become a cat person, and is now Taking Cats Seriously. Vaden follows up with some news of his own, before diving into the main subject for today\u0026apos;s episode - \u003ca href='https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/p/popper80.pdf'\u003ePopper\u0026apos;s Three Worlds\u003c/a\u003e.\n\u003cbr/\u003eIn this episode we discuss:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe \u003ca href='https://fallibleideas.com/taking-children-seriously'\u003eTCS\u003c/a\u003e parenting movement \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eChesto\u0026apos;s \u003ca href='https://twitter.com/mynameisChesto/status/1381798896960086016'\u003etweet\u003c/a\u003e to Deutsch\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eHow Popper\u0026apos;s Three Worlds differs from Deutsch\u0026apos;s Things/Qualia/Abstractions classification\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eWould prime numbers exist if humans didn\u0026apos;t exist?\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eWhat constitutes reality?\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe existence of non-physical entities and the reality of abstractions \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cbr/\u003eHaving a quick glance at the following wikipedia pages will help ground the conversation:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system'\u003eFormal systems\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language'\u003eFormal languages\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic'\u003eModular Arithmetic\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rules_of_inference#:~:text=Rules%20of%20inference%20are%20syntactical,conclusion%2C%20if%20it%20is%20sound.'\u003eRules of inference\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic#:~:text=Non%2Dclassical%20logics%20(and%20sometimes,extensions%2C%20deviations%2C%20and%20variations.'\u003eAlternative Logics\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eErrata:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eSomewhere Vaden says English is a formal language. Nope definitely not - English is \u003cem\u003enatural\u003c/em\u003e language, which is distinct from a \u003cem\u003eformal\u003c/em\u003e language.  \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eSend us your best guess for whether or not we\u0026apos;re real at \u003cem\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com.\u003c/em\u003e  \u003cem\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2021-05-11T10:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/30c82dba-ee1d-4014-8612-0ecc20ba0c2e.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":53550960,"duration_in_seconds":4396}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-8450979","title":"#23 - Physics, Philosophy, and Free Will with Sam Kuypers ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/23","content_text":"We are joined by the great Sam Kuypers for a conversation on physics, philosophy, and free will. Vaden spends most of the episode preparing for a huge debate on free-will, and Ben spends it worried about what alternate versions of himself are up to in parallel universes. Still, we manage to touch on a few topics: Realism and antirealist interpretations of quantum theoryThe advisory styles of Dennis Sciama and John Wheeler and the standardization of education Reconciling the Harris / Deutsch perspectives on Free WillRestorative and Rehabilitative justiceA universe in which Ben spontaneously explodes into dust while speakingLinks: Sam's recent paper with David DeutschFrom Micro to Macro, by Vlatko Vedral Hayek's Constitution of LibertySam Kuypers is a  DPhil student at the University of Oxford, where he researches foundational issues in quantum theory. He's also one of the founders of the Oxford Karl Popper Society, an Oxford-based student society created to facilitate discussions about science and philosophy.Follow him on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/crit_rat.Send us an email or explode into dust - your choice:  incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Sam Kuypers.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWe are joined by the great Sam Kuypers for a conversation on physics, philosophy, and free will. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eVaden spends most of the episode preparing for a huge debate on free-will, and Ben spends it worried about what alternate versions of himself are up to in parallel universes. Still, we manage to touch on a few topics: \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eRealism and antirealist interpretations of quantum theory\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe advisory styles of Dennis Sciama and John Wheeler and the standardization of education \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eReconciling the Harris / Deutsch perspectives on Free Will\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eRestorative and Rehabilitative justice\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eA universe in which Ben spontaneously explodes into dust while speaking\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eLinks: \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eSam\u0026apos;s \u003ca href='https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02328'\u003erecent paper\u003c/a\u003e with David Deutsch\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://smile.amazon.com/Micro-Macro-Adventures-Wandering-Physicist-ebook/dp/B077YXQ2C8?sa-no-redirect=1'\u003eFrom Micro to Macro\u003c/a\u003e, by Vlatko Vedral \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eHayek\u0026apos;s \u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_of_Liberty'\u003eConstitution of Liberty\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003eSam Kuypers is a  DPhil student at the University of Oxford, where he researches foundational issues in quantum theory. He\u0026apos;s also one of the founders of the \u003c/em\u003e\u003ca href='https://oxfkarlpopper.squarespace.com/'\u003e\u003cem\u003eOxford Karl Popper Society\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e, an Oxford-based student society created to facilitate discussions about science and philosophy.\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003eFollow him on Twitter at: \u003c/em\u003e\u003ca href='https://twitter.com/crit_rat'\u003e\u003cem\u003ehttps://twitter.com/crit_rat\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSend us an email or explode into dust - your choice:  \u003cem\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Sam Kuypers.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2021-05-03T10:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6a2f50e8-b204-4dd7-9962-a1a133ee876b.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":67531455,"duration_in_seconds":5624}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-8336503","title":"#22 - Thinking Through Thought Experiments","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/22","content_text":"In this episode, we discuss Peter Singer's famous drowning child thought experiment, the role of moral theories, and the role of thought experiments in moral reasoning. From our perspectives, the conversation went something like this:  Ben's POV: Bravely and boldly trying to think through problems, Ben puts forward a stunningly insightful theory about the role of moral argumentation. Vaden, jealous of the profundity of Ben's message, tries to disagree but can't. Vaden's POV: What the eff is Ben talking about? I disagree. No wait nvm I agree. Let's change the subject. References in intro segment: Talk by Joseph AgassiRobert Sapolsky's book BehaveMilgram experimentsStanford Prison Experiments (see also: Radio Lab's The Bad Show)References in main  segment:Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter SingerThe Organization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS) Reasons and Persons by Derek ParfitGalileo's thought experiment: Parts of Falling ObjectsEinstein's thought experiments Put on a suit and drown a child before sending your best moral theory to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eIn this episode, we discuss Peter Singer\u0026apos;s famous drowning child thought experiment, the role of moral theories, and the role of thought experiments in moral reasoning. From our perspectives, the conversation went something like this:  \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eBen\u0026apos;s POV: Bravely and boldly trying to think through problems, Ben puts forward a \u003cem\u003estunningly\u003c/em\u003e insightful theory about the role of moral argumentation. Vaden, jealous of the profundity of Ben\u0026apos;s message, tries to disagree but can\u0026apos;t. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eVaden\u0026apos;s POV: What the eff is Ben talking about? I disagree. No wait nvm I agree. Let\u0026apos;s change the subject. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences in intro segment: \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OgXqC9rVNo\u0026amp;ab_channel=OxfordKarlPopperSociety'\u003eTalk by Joseph Agassi\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eRobert Sapolsky\u0026apos;s book \u003ca href='https://www.amazon.ca/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078'\u003eBehave\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment'\u003eMilgram experiments\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment'\u003eStanford Prison Experiments\u003c/a\u003e (see also: Radio Lab\u0026apos;s \u003ca href='https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/180092-the-bad-show'\u003eThe Bad Show\u003c/a\u003e)\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences in main  segment:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/mm/articles/Singer_1972Famine.pdf'\u003eFamine, Affluence, and Morality\u003c/a\u003e by Peter Singer\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.preventsuffering.org/'\u003eThe Organization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering\u003c/a\u003e (OPIS) \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_and_Persons'\u003eReasons and Persons\u003c/a\u003e by Derek Parfit\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eGalileo\u0026apos;s thought experiment: \u003ca href='https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10670-020-00263-y'\u003eParts of Falling Objects\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments'\u003eEinstein\u0026apos;s thought experiments\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003ePut on a suit and drown a child before sending your best moral theory to \u003cem\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2021-04-14T17:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/90eb6546-fbe6-40fa-ab30-2e73bc2dc2da.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":54955972,"duration_in_seconds":4576}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-8195969","title":"#21 (C\u0026R Series, Ch.1) - The Problem of Induction","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/21","content_text":"After a long digression, we finally return to the Conjectures and Refutations series. In this episode we cover Chapter 1: Science: Conjectures and Refutations. In particular, we focus on one of the trickiest Popperian concepts to wrap one's head around - the problem of induction.   References:Wiki on scientific laws Hume's dialogues concerning natural religion  Proof of the impossibility of probability induction One of the YouTube videos on induction. And in case you were wondering what happened to the two unfalsifiable theories Popper attacks in this chapter, you'll be pleased to know that they have merged into a super theory. We give you Psychoanalytic-Marxism: http://oldsite.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/janmohamed/Psychoanalytic-Marxism.pdf. Sent us your favorite unfalsifiable theory at incrementspodcast@gmail.com\n\naudio updated: 29/08/2021","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eAfter a long digression, we finally return to the Conjectures and Refutations series. In this episode we cover Chapter 1: \u003cem\u003eScience: Conjectures and Refutations\u003c/em\u003e. In particular, we focus on one of the trickiest Popperian concepts to wrap one\u0026apos;s head around - the problem of induction.  \u003cbr/\u003e \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law'\u003eWiki on scientific laws \u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogues_Concerning_Natural_Religion'\u003eHume\u0026apos;s dialogues concerning natural religion\u003c/a\u003e  \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://vmasrani.github.io/assets/pdf/prob_induction_disproof.pdf'\u003eProof of the impossibility of probability induction\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eOne of the \u003ca href='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd1U_MC_p3M\u0026amp;ab_channel=AeonVideo'\u003eYouTube videos\u003c/a\u003e on induction. \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd in case you were wondering what happened to the two unfalsifiable theories Popper attacks in this chapter, you\u0026apos;ll be pleased to know that they have merged into a super theory. We give you \u003cem\u003ePsychoanalytic-Marxism: \u003c/em\u003e\u003ca href='http://oldsite.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/janmohamed/Psychoanalytic-Marxism.pdf'\u003ehttp://oldsite.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/janmohamed/Psychoanalytic-Marxism.pdf\u003c/a\u003e.\u003cbr/\u003e \u003cbr/\u003eSent us your favorite unfalsifiable theory at \u003cem\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eaudio updated: 29/08/2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2021-03-23T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/86b770bb-6b37-44ec-acdc-9d810bee3b7f.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":45649800,"duration_in_seconds":3238}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-8100547","title":"#20 (HTI crossover episode) - Roundtable Longtermism Discussion","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/20","content_text":"Hello and sorry for the delay! We finally got together with Fin and Luca from the excellent HearThisIdea podcast for a nice roundtable discussion on longtermism. We laughed, we cried, we tried our best to communicate across the divide.  Material referenced in the discussion:- 80k Hours Problem Profiles- Jon Hamm  imprisons us in an Alexa- The Case for Strong Longtermism- A Case Against Strong Longtermism- Nick Bostrom's seminal paper on existential risksQuote:  \"[Events like Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. ] have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life.  (italics added)\"- Nick Bostrom's \"A survey of expert opinion\" (errata: Vaden incorrectly said this paper was coauthored by Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord. It's actually authored by Vincent C. Müller and Nick Bostrom - Toby Ord and Anders Sandberg are acknowledged on page 15 for having helped design the questionnaire.) Send us a survey of expert credences over at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guests: Fin Moorhouse and Luca Righetti.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eHello and sorry for the delay! We finally got together with Fin and Luca from the excellent \u003ca href='https://hearthisidea.com/'\u003eHearThisIdea\u003c/a\u003e podcast for a nice roundtable discussion on longtermism. We laughed, we cried, we tried our best to communicate across the divide.  \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eMaterial referenced in the discussion:\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/'\u003e80k Hours Problem Profiles\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://web.archive.org/web/20191023155157/https://foundational-research.org/s-risks-talk-eag-boston-2017/'\u003eJon Hamm  imprisons us in an Alexa\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Hilary-Greaves-and-William-MacAskill_strong-longtermism.pdf'\u003eThe Case for Strong Longtermism\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2020/against_longtermism/'\u003eA Case Against Strong Longtermism\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html'\u003eNick Bostrom\u0026apos;s seminal paper on existential risks\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eQuote:  \u0026quot;[Events like Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. ] have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – \u003cem\u003eeven the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life.\u003c/em\u003e  (italics added)\u0026quot;\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- Nick Bostrom\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;\u003ca href='https://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf'\u003eA survey of expert opinion\u003c/a\u003e\u0026quot; (errata: Vaden incorrectly said this paper was coauthored by Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord. It\u0026apos;s actually authored by Vincent C. Müller and Nick Bostrom - Toby Ord and Anders Sandberg are acknowledged on page 15 for having helped design the questionnaire.) \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eSend us a survey of expert credences over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guests: Fin Moorhouse and Luca Righetti.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2021-03-08T10:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/b82f2199-72ee-4dc7-8a04-a72b67bb3efe.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":93479914,"duration_in_seconds":11684}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-7623718","title":"#19 - Against Longtermism FAQ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/19","content_text":"Back in the ring for round two on longtermism! We (Ben somewhat drunkenly) respond to some of the criticism of episode #17 and our two essays (Ben's, Vaden's) We touch on: Ben's hate mail from his piece on cliodynamicsLongtermism as implying altruistic portfolio shufflingWhat on earth is Bayesian epistemology The Pasadena gameAuthoritarianism and the danger of seeking perfection Arrow's theoremAlternative decision theories focusing on error correction What's the probability of nuclear war before 2100?When are models reliable What problems to work on You will, dear listener, be either pleased or horrified to learn that this will not be our last foray into longtermism. It's like choose your own adventure ... except we're choosing the adventure, and the adventure is longtermism. Next stop is the Hear this Idea podcast!Send us best longterm prediction at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBack in the ring for round two on longtermism! We (Ben somewhat drunkenly) respond to some of the criticism of episode #17 and our two essays (\u003ca href='https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2NJszbnBTwibfdpo7/strong-longtermism-irrefutability-and-moral-progress'\u003eBen\u0026apos;s\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href='https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2020/against_longtermism/'\u003eVaden\u0026apos;s\u003c/a\u003e) We touch on: \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026apos;s hate mail from his \u003ca href='https://medium.com/conjecture-magazine/the-dangers-of-cliodynamics-c48392b4a985'\u003epiece on cliodynamics\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLongtermism as implying altruistic portfolio shuffling\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eWhat on earth is Bayesian epistemology \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='http://colyvan.com/papers/pasadena.pdf'\u003eThe Pasadena game\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eAuthoritarianism and the danger of seeking perfection \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eArrow\u0026apos;s theorem\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eAlternative decision theories focusing on error correction \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eWhat\u0026apos;s the probability of nuclear war before 2100?\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eWhen are models reliable \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eWhat problems to work on \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou will, dear listener, be either pleased or horrified to learn that this will not be our last foray into longtermism. It\u0026apos;s like choose your own adventure ... except we\u0026apos;re choosing the adventure, and the adventure is longtermism. Next stop is the \u003ca href='https://hearthisidea.com/'\u003eHear this Idea podcast\u003c/a\u003e!\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eSend us best longterm prediction at incrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2021-02-01T20:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/5b58b507-52f8-4dd7-8abd-471f6371691d.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":65372208,"duration_in_seconds":5444}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-7296019","title":"#18 - Work Addiction ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/18","content_text":"Bit of a personal episode this one is! Ben learns how to be a twitter warrior while Vaden has a full-on breakdown during quarantine. Who knew work addiction was actually a real thing? And that there are 12 step programs for people who identify as being \"powerless over compulsive work, worry, or activity\"? And that mathematics can create compulsive behavior indistinguishable from drug addiction? Vaden does, now.  \n\nPeople mentioned in this episode:  \n\n- Andrew Wiles (look at his face! the face of an addict!)\n- Grigori Perelman\n- Terry Tao's blog post (\"There is a particularly dangerous occupational hazard in this subject: one can become focused, to the exclusion of other mathematical activity (and in extreme cases, on non-mathematical activity also) on a single really difficult problem in a field (or on some grand unifying theory) before one is really ready (both in terms of mathematical preparation, and also in terms of one’s career) to devote so much of one’s research time to such a project. \" - italics added)   \n\nWork slavishly without sleeping or eating to send email over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBit of a personal episode this one is! Ben learns how to be a twitter warrior while Vaden has a full-on breakdown during quarantine. Who knew work addiction was actually a real thing? And that there are \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workaholics_Anonymous\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003e12 step programs\u003c/a\u003e for people who identify as being \u0026quot;powerless over compulsive work, worry, or activity\u0026quot;? And that mathematics can create compulsive behavior indistinguishable from drug addiction? Vaden does, now.  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePeople mentioned in this episode:  \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e- \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eAndrew Wiles\u003c/a\u003e (look at his face! the face of an addict!)\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n- \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eGrigori Perelman\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n- \u003ca href=\"https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/dont-prematurely-obsess-on-a-single-big-problem-or-big-theory/\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eTerry Tao\u0026#39;s\u003c/a\u003e blog post (\u0026quot;There is a particularly dangerous occupational hazard in this subject: one can become focused, to the exclusion of other mathematical activity (\u003cem\u003eand in extreme cases, on non-mathematical activity also\u003c/em\u003e) on a single really difficult problem in a field (or on some grand unifying theory) before one is really ready (both in terms of mathematical preparation, and also in terms of one’s career) to devote so much of one’s research time to such a project. \u0026quot; - italics added)   \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWork slavishly without sleeping or eating to send email over to \u003ca href=\"mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com\" rel=\"nofollow\"\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2021-01-14T12:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/f754242f-7ac5-41ac-a1c8-71c4b97a2b80.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":24741544,"duration_in_seconds":2059}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-6919628","title":"#17 - Against Longtermism","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/17","content_text":"Well, there's no avoiding controversy with this one. We explain, examine, and attempt to refute the shiny new moral philosophy of longtermism. Our critique focuses on The Case for Strong Longtermism by Hilary Greaves and Will MacAskill. We say so in the episode, but it's important to emphasize that we harbour no animosity towards anyone in the effective altruism community. However, we both think that longtermism is pretty f***ing scary and do our best to communicate why.Confused as to why there's no charming, witty, and hilarious intro? Us too. Somehow, Ben managed to corrupt his audio. Classic. Oh well, some of you tell us you dislike the intros anyway. ReferencesThe Case for Strong Longtermism, by Greaves and MacAskillVaden's EA forum post on longtermismThe reddit discussion surrounding Vaden's pieceBen's piece on longtermism (which he has hidden in the depths of Medium because he's scared of the EA forum) Ben on Pascal's Mugging and Expected ValuesGwern and Robin Hanson making fun of Ben's piece Yell at us on the EA forum, on Reddit, on Medium, or over email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWell, there\u0026apos;s no avoiding controversy with this one. We explain, examine, and attempt to refute the shiny new moral philosophy of \u003cem\u003elongtermism.\u003c/em\u003e Our critique focuses on \u003ca href='https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5506078de4b02d88372eee4e/t/5f1704905c33720e61cd3214/1595344019788/The_Case_for_Strong_Longtermism.pdf'\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Case for Strong Longtermism\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eby Hilary Greaves and Will MacAskill. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eWe say so in the episode, but it\u0026apos;s important to emphasize that we harbour no animosity towards anyone in the effective altruism community. However, we both think that longtermism is pretty f***ing scary and do our best to communicate why.\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eConfused as to why there\u0026apos;s no charming, witty, and hilarious intro? Us too. Somehow, Ben managed to corrupt his audio. Classic. Oh well, some of you tell us you dislike the intros anyway. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003eReferences\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5506078de4b02d88372eee4e/t/5f1704905c33720e61cd3214/1595344019788/The_Case_for_Strong_Longtermism.pdf'\u003eThe Case for Strong Longtermism\u003c/a\u003e, by Greaves and MacAskill\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eVaden\u0026apos;s \u003ca href='https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7MPTzAnPtu5HKesMX/a-case-against-strong-longtermism'\u003eEA forum post\u003c/a\u003e on longtermism\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe \u003ca href='https://www.reddit.com/r/EffectiveAltruism/comments/kd41jw/a_case_against_strong_longtermism/'\u003ereddit discussion\u003c/a\u003e surrounding Vaden\u0026apos;s piece\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBen\u0026apos;s \u003ca href='https://benchugg.medium.com/against-strong-longtermism-a-response-to-greaves-and-macaskill-cb4bb9681982'\u003epiece on longtermism\u003c/a\u003e (which he has hidden in the depths of Medium because he\u0026apos;s scared of the EA forum) \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBen on \u003ca href='https://medium.com/conjecture-magazine/pascals-mugging-and-the-poverty-of-the-expected-value-calculus-70b190d953cd'\u003ePascal\u0026apos;s Mugging and Expected Values\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eGwern and Robin Hanson \u003ca href='https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1339956546801954816?s=20'\u003emaking fun\u003c/a\u003e of Ben\u0026apos;s piece \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eYell at us on the EA forum, on Reddit, on Medium, or over email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-12-18T19:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/f1e65451-076d-4ca4-bef0-5f938e81d70d.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":64853211,"duration_in_seconds":5401}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-6777526","title":"#16 - Social Media II: Conversation, Privacy, and Odds \u0026 Ends","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/16","content_text":"Vaden comes battle-hardened and ready to debate and is met with ... a big soft hug from Ben. Ben repents his apocalyptic sins and admits that Vaden changed his mind. Again. God dammit this is getting annoying. To his credit, Vaden only gloats for 10 minutes.  Eventually we touch on some other topics: technology as filling nicheswhen is outrage appropriate? the upsides of social media conversation as a substitute for violence Much love to everyone and stay safe out there! Send us some feedback at incrementspodcast@gmail.com ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eVaden comes battle-hardened and ready to debate and is met with ... a big soft hug from Ben. Ben repents his apocalyptic sins and admits that Vaden changed his mind. Again. God dammit this is getting annoying. To his credit, Vaden only gloats for 10 minutes.  Eventually we touch on some other topics: \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003etechnology as filling niches\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003ewhen is outrage appropriate? \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003ethe upsides of social media \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003econversation as a substitute for violence \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eMuch love to everyone and stay safe out there! Send us some feedback at incrementspodcast@gmail.com \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-12-09T16:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/0901eddf-9741-49c8-a73f-b93fd083c531.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":36187134,"duration_in_seconds":3012}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-6336580","title":"#15 - Social Media I: Manipulation, Outrage, and Documentaries ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/15","content_text":"Alright spiders, point this at your brain. Ben and Vaden do a deep dive into the recent Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma and have a genuine debate, just like the good ol' days.  Topics touched:Why Vaden dislikes documentaries, and this one in particularIs reliance on social media a problem?The advertisement modelThe relationship between social media and mental health... and political polarization... and outrage in generalEpistemological erosionWars of words and swordsOutraged? Polarized? Radicalized, even?  We want to hear about it at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Quotes referenced in episode:\"This point being crossed is at the root of addiction, polarization, radicalization, outrageification, vanityification, the entire thing. This is overpowering human nature, and this is checkmate on humanity.\"- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma\"If we go down the current status quo for, let's say, another 20 years... we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance. We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We probably degrade the world's democracies so that they fall into some sort of bizarre autocratic dysfunction. We probably ruin the global economy.  Uh, we probably, um, don't survive.  You know, I... I really do view it as existential.\"- Jaron Lanier, The Social Dilemma \"We're pointing these engines of AI back at ourselves to reverse-engineer what elicits responses from us. Almost like you're stimulating nerve cells on a spider to see what causes its legs to respond. So, it really is this kind of prison experiment where we're just, you know, roping people into the matrix, and we're just harvesting all this money and... and data from all their activity to profit from.\"- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma\"Although I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words.\"- Karl Popper, The Myth Of The FrameworkReferences:Welcome to the Cult Factory (Tristan Harris's latest appearance on Making Sense)Michael Moore’s 13 Rules for Making Documentary FilmsHow to assess a documentaryTwitter Study showing only 1% of users are polarized, and the rest moderateLiterature review of social media use and mental health by Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge. Conclusion? It's complicated.Study showing self reports of time spent on social media are not reliable. This is relevant because most studies showing a link between social media use and deteriorating mental health rely on self reports. Not Born Yesterday by Hugo MercierErrata: Vaden keeps saying \"Jared Lanier\" when it should be \"Jaron Lanier\". Oops!","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eAlright spiders, point this at your brain. Ben and Vaden do a deep dive into the recent Netflix documentary \u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Dilemma'\u003eThe Social Dilemma\u003c/a\u003e and have a genuine debate, just like the good ol\u0026apos; days.  Topics touched:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eWhy Vaden dislikes documentaries, and this one in particular\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eIs reliance on social media a problem?\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe advertisement model\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe relationship between social media and mental health\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e... and political polarization\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e... and outrage in general\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eEpistemological erosion\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eWars of words and swords\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutraged? Polarized? Radicalized, even?  We want to hear about it at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eQuotes referenced in episode:\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u0026quot;This point being crossed is at the root of addiction, polarization, radicalization, outrageification, vanityification, the entire thing. This is overpowering human nature, and this is checkmate on humanity.\u0026quot;\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u0026quot;If we go down the current status quo for, let\u0026apos;s say, another 20 years... we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance. We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We probably degrade the world\u0026apos;s democracies so that they fall into some sort of bizarre autocratic dysfunction. We probably ruin the global economy.  Uh, we probably, um, don\u0026apos;t survive.  You know, I... I really do view it as existential.\u0026quot;\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Jaron Lanier, The Social Dilemma \u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u0026quot;We\u0026apos;re pointing these engines of AI back at ourselves to reverse-engineer what elicits responses from us. Almost like you\u0026apos;re stimulating nerve cells on a spider to see what causes its legs to respond. So, it really is this kind of prison experiment where we\u0026apos;re just, you know, roping people into the matrix, and we\u0026apos;re just harvesting all this money and... and data from all their activity to profit from.\u0026quot;\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026quot;Although I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: \u003cem\u003eI hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement.\u003c/em\u003e Admittedly, disagreement \u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words.\u0026quot;\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Karl Popper, The Myth Of The Framework\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eReferences:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1se6POdUcWM'\u003eWelcome to the Cult Factory\u003c/a\u003e (Tristan Harris\u0026apos;s latest appearance on Making Sense)\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://tinyurl.com/y4mf3zbr'\u003eMichael Moore’s 13 Rules for Making Documentary Films\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4596'\u003eHow to assess a documentary\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/twitter-is-not-the-echo-chamber-we-think-it-is'\u003eTwitter Study\u003c/a\u003e showing only 1% of users are polarized, and the rest moderate\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://tinyurl.com/rleutwl'\u003eLiterature review of social media use and mental health\u003c/a\u003e by Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge. Conclusion? It\u0026apos;s complicated.\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://tinyurl.com/y5l4e5w7'\u003eStudy showing\u003c/a\u003e self reports of time spent on social media are not reliable. This is relevant because most studies showing a link between social media use and deteriorating mental health rely on self reports. \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.amazon.ca/Not-Born-Yesterday-Science-Believe/dp/0691178704'\u003eNot Born Yesterday\u003c/a\u003e by Hugo Mercier\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eErrata: \u003cbr/\u003eVaden keeps saying \u0026quot;Jared Lanier\u0026quot; when it should be \u0026quot;Jaron Lanier\u0026quot;. Oops!\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-11-11T20:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6407aa50-d336-4399-9009-500eeb199729.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":59431179,"duration_in_seconds":4949}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-6044605","title":"#14 (C\u0026R Series, Ch.16) - Prediction, Prophecy, and Fascism","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/14","content_text":"The third in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 16: Prediction And Prophecy in the Social Sciences. There's a bit more Hitler stuff in this one than usual (retweets  ≠ endorsements), but only because he provides a clear example of the motherlode of all bad ideas - historicism. We discuss:What historicism is and why it sucksPrediction vs prophecyDifferences between the physical sciences and social sciencesThe success of prediction in the physical sciencesThe role of the social sciencesWhat are laws of nature?Plus a little easter egg! As always send us a little sumptin' sumptin' at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Quotes:\"In memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.\"- Epigraph of The Poverty of Historicism\"It was not by mere chance that the first forms of civilisation arose where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated them and forced them to obey his command. The members of the inferior race became the first mechanical tools in the service of a growing civilisation. Thereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had to follow.As a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical powers into organised channels under his own leadership, forcing them to follow his will and purpose.By imposing on them a useful, though hard, manner of employing their powers, he not only spared the lives of those whom he had conquered, but probably made their lives easier than they had been in the former state of so-called 'freedom.'\" (italics added)- Mein Kampf (The Stalag Edition), Chapter XI: Nation and Race“But it is clear that the adoption of the conspiracy theory can hardly be avoided by those who believe that they know how to make heaven on earth. The only explanation for their failure to produce this heaven is the malevolence of the devil who has a vested interest in hell.”- Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 16: Prediction and Prophecy in the Social Sciences","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eThe third in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 16: \u003ca href='https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9v5de745uno1k4/16_prediction_and_prophecy.pdf?dl=0'\u003ePrediction And Prophecy in the Social Sciences\u003c/a\u003e. There\u0026apos;s a bit more Hitler stuff in this one than usual (retweets  ≠ endorsements), but only because he provides a clear example of the motherlode of all bad ideas - historicism. We discuss:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eWhat historicism is and why it sucks\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003ePrediction vs prophecy\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eDifferences between the physical sciences and social sciences\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe success of prediction in the physical sciences\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe role of the social sciences\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eWhat are laws of nature?\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlus a little easter egg! As always send us a little sumptin\u0026apos; sumptin\u0026apos; at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eQuotes:\u003cbr/\u003e\u0026quot;In memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.\u0026quot;\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Epigraph of The Poverty of Historicism\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eIt was not by mere chance\u003c/em\u003e that the first forms of civilisation arose where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated them and forced them to obey his command. The members of the inferior race became the first mechanical tools in the service of a growing civilisation. \u003cem\u003eThereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had to follow\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eAs a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical powers into organised channels under his own leadership, forcing them to follow his will and purpose.\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eBy imposing on them a useful, though hard, manner of employing their powers, he not only spared the lives of those whom he had conquered, but probably made their lives easier than they had been in the former state of so-called \u0026apos;freedom.\u0026apos;\u0026quot; (italics added)\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Mein Kampf (The Stalag Edition), Chapter XI: Nation and Race\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/em\u003e“But it is clear that the adoption of the conspiracy theory can hardly be avoided by those who believe that they know how to make heaven on earth. The only explanation for their failure to produce this heaven is the malevolence of the devil who has a vested interest in hell.”\u003cbr/\u003e-\u003cem\u003e Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 16: Prediction and Prophecy in the Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-10-24T15:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6728e08b-a13e-4cf1-bad5-431e890f0cd8.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":49132254,"duration_in_seconds":4091}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-5909080","title":"#13 - Privacy with Stephen Caines","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/13","content_text":"Stephen is back for round two! In this episode we learn that Vaden wants to live in a panopticon and Ben in a high tech surveillance state. Also, we're all going to use Bing from now on.  Stephen Caines is a research fellow at Stanford law school's CodeX centre for legal informatics, where he specializes in the domestic use of facial recognition technology. He received a J.D. from  the University of Miami  with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology.  Bring on da feedback at incrementspodcast@gmail.com; we check it at least once a month ...Special Guest: Stephen Caines.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eStephen is back for round two! In this episode we learn that Vaden wants to live in a panopticon and Ben in a high tech surveillance state. Also, we\u0026apos;re all going to use Bing from now on.  \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003ca href='http://caines.tech'\u003e\u003cem\u003eStephen Caines\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e is a research fellow at Stanford law school\u0026apos;s CodeX centre for legal informatics, where he specializes in the domestic use of facial recognition technology. He received a J.D. from  the University of Miami  with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology.  \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/em\u003eBring on da feedback at incrementspodcast@gmail.com; we check it at least once a month ...\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Stephen Caines.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-10-15T07:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6b148070-e8fd-4878-966b-1db4fdb44426.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":44230239,"duration_in_seconds":3683}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-5860924","title":"#12 (C\u0026R Series, Ch. 17) - Public Opinion and Liberal Principles","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/12","content_text":"In the lead up to the American presidential election, one of the largest and most consequential expressions of public opinion, Ben and Vaden do what they always do and ask: \"What does Popper say about this?\" The second in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 17: Public Opinion and Liberal Principles.  Largely irrelevant and probably unhelpful, we touch A thesis that the far left and right are converging vis-a-vis reactionary politicsThe idea that \"truth is manifest\", i.e. obvious The role of free speech and diversity of opinionPolitical polarizationLibertarians and their hate of seatbeltsSend us some hate or some love at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Chapter excerpt:The following remarks were designed to provide material for debate at an international conference of liberals (...). My purpose was simply to lay the foundations for a good general discussion. Because I could assume liberal views in my audience I was largely concerned to challenge, rather than endorse, popular assumptions favourable to these views.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eIn the lead up to the American presidential election, one of the largest and most consequential expressions of public opinion, Ben and Vaden do what they always do and ask: \u0026quot;What does Popper say about this?\u0026quot; The second in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 17: \u003ca href='https://www.dropbox.com/s/6a6xkqlw7q5psx5/public_opinion.pdf?dl=0'\u003ePublic Opinion and Liberal Principles\u003c/a\u003e.  Largely irrelevant and probably unhelpful, we touch \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eA thesis that the far left and right are converging vis-a-vis reactionary politics\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe idea that \u0026quot;truth is manifest\u0026quot;, i.e. obvious \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe role of free speech and diversity of opinion\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003ePolitical polarization\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLibertarians and their hate of seatbelts\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eSend us some hate or some love at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eChapter excerpt:\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe following remarks were designed to provide material for debate at an international conference of liberals (...). My purpose was simply to lay the foundations for a good general discussion. Because I could assume liberal views in my audience I was largely concerned to challenge, rather than endorse, popular assumptions favourable to these views.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-10-12T12:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/0d11e797-56c1-45a5-9196-b8dcd25591c0.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":54366956,"duration_in_seconds":4527}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-5475121","title":"#11 - Debating Existential Risk","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/11","content_text":"Vaden's arguments against Bayesian philosophy and existential risk are examined by someone who might actually know what they're talking about, i.e., not Ben. After writing a critique of our conversation in Episode 7, which started off a series of blog posts, our good friend Mauricio (who studies political science, economics, and philosophy) kindly agrees to come on the podcast and try to figure out who's more confused. Does Vaden convert? \nWe apologize for the long wait between this episode and the last one. It was all Vaden's fault. Hit us up at incrementspodcast@gmail.com!Note from Vaden:  Upon relistening, I've just learned my new computer chair clicks in the most annoying possible way every time I get enthusiastic. My apologies - I'll work on being less enthusiastic in future episodes.  Second note from Vaden: Yeesh lots of audio issues with this episode - I replaced the file with a cleaned up version at 5:30pm September 17th. Still learning... ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eVaden\u0026apos;s arguments against Bayesian philosophy and existential risk are examined by someone who might actually know what they\u0026apos;re talking about, i.e., not Ben. After writing a critique of our conversation in Episode 7, which started off \u003ca href='https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2020/mauricio_first_response/'\u003ea series of blog posts\u003c/a\u003e, our good friend Mauricio (who studies political science, economics, and philosophy) kindly agrees to come on the podcast and try to figure out who\u0026apos;s more confused. Does Vaden convert? \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\nWe apologize for the long wait between this episode and the last one. It was all Vaden\u0026apos;s fault. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eHit us up at \u003cem\u003eincrementspodcast@gmail.com\u003c/em\u003e!\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote from Vaden:  Upon relistening, I\u0026apos;ve just learned my new computer chair clicks in the most annoying possible way every time I get enthusiastic. My apologies - I\u0026apos;ll work on being less enthusiastic in future episodes.  \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eSecond note from Vaden: Yeesh lots of audio issues with this episode - I replaced the file with a cleaned up version at 5:30pm September 17th. Still learning... \u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-09-16T16:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/4ed5459c-bf59-432a-966d-33c3dd5450f0.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":64654289,"duration_in_seconds":5357}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-4988552","title":"#10 (C\u0026R Series, Ch. 4) - Tradition","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/10","content_text":"Traditions, what are you good for? Absolutely nothing? In this episode of Increments, Ben and Vaden begin their series on Conjectures and Refutations by looking at the role tradition plays in society, and examine one tradition in particular - the critical tradition. No monkeys were harmed in the making of this episode. References:- C\u0026amp;R, Chapter 4: Towards a Rational Theory of TraditionPodcast shoutout:- Jennifer Doleac and Rob Wiblin on policing, law and incarceration- James Foreman Jr. on the US criminal legal systemaudio updated 26/12/2020","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eTraditions, what are you good for? Absolutely nothing? In this episode of Increments, Ben and Vaden begin their series on Conjectures and Refutations by looking at the role tradition plays in society, and examine one tradition in particular - the critical tradition. No monkeys were harmed in the making of this episode. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003eReferences:\u003cbr/\u003e- C\u0026amp;R, Chapter 4: \u003c/b\u003e\u003ca href='https://tinyurl.com/y39d25zu'\u003eTowards a Rational Theory of Tradition\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003ePodcast shoutout:\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/b\u003e-\u003cb\u003e \u003c/b\u003eJennifer Doleac and Rob Wiblin on \u003ca href='https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/jennifer-doleac-reforming-police-preventing-crime/'\u003epolicing, law and incarceration\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- James Foreman Jr. on the \u003ca href='https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/james-forman-jr-cruelty-in-the-us-criminal-legal-system/'\u003eUS criminal legal system\u003c/a\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003eaudio updated 26/12/2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-08-13T14:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/2385a81c-7ff7-484d-8af8-b6cf95831e6a.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":59929633,"duration_in_seconds":4537}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-4891391","title":"#9 - Facial Recognition Technology with Stephen Caines ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/9","content_text":"The talented Stephen Caines punctures the cloud of confusion that is Ben and Vaden's conception of facial recognition technology. We talk about the development and usage of facial recognition in the private and public spheres, the dangers and merits of the technology, and Vaden's plan to use it a bars. For God's sake don't give that man a GPU. Stephen is a legal technologist with a passion for access to justice. He is a 2019 graduate of the University of Miami School of Law with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology. While in law school, his work focused on public interest, legal aid organizations, and non-profits. He was a 2018 Access to Justice Technology Fellow and has worked with the Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. on a variety of technology initiatives aimed at optimizing their operations. Additionally, he worked on the legislative and technology policy team of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Stephen’s current work focuses on developing standards and best practices for the safe and ethical implementation of technology in the public sector.References: Stephen's website.Perpetual Lineup Project (out of Georgetown)Stephen on the Our Data podcastIBM, Amazon, and Microsoft put moratoria on some aspects of their FRT technology. Clearview AI Special Guest: Stephen Caines.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe talented Stephen Caines punctures the cloud of confusion that is Ben and Vaden\u0026apos;s conception of facial recognition technology. We talk about the development and usage of facial recognition in the private and public spheres, the dangers and merits of the technology, and Vaden\u0026apos;s plan to use it a bars. For God\u0026apos;s sake don\u0026apos;t give that man a GPU. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003ca href='https://caines.tech/#/'\u003eStephen\u003c/a\u003e is a legal technologist with a passion for access to justice. He is a 2019 graduate of the University of Miami School of Law with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology. While in law school, his work focused on public interest, legal aid organizations, and non-profits. He was a 2018 Access to Justice Technology Fellow and has worked with the Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. on a variety of technology initiatives aimed at optimizing their operations. Additionally, he worked on the legislative and technology policy team of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Stephen’s current work focuses on developing standards and best practices for the safe and ethical implementation of technology in the public sector.\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences: \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eStephen\u0026apos;s \u003ca href='http://caines.tech'\u003ewebsite\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.perpetuallineup.org/'\u003ePerpetual Lineup Project\u003c/a\u003e (out of Georgetown)\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://soundcloud.com/user-577089511/facial-recognition-technology-with-stephen-caines?in=user-577089511/sets/our-data-by-regtrax'\u003eStephen on the \u003cem\u003eOur Data\u003c/em\u003e podcast\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21284683/ibm-no-longer-general-purpose-facial-recognition-analysis-software'\u003eIBM\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href='https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/technology/amazon-facial-recognition-backlash.html'\u003eAmazon\u003c/a\u003e, and \u003ca href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/11/microsoft-facial-recognition/'\u003eMicrosoft\u003c/a\u003e put moratoria on some aspects of their FRT technology. \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://clearview.ai/'\u003eClearview AI\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial Guest: Stephen Caines.\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-08-06T19:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/50f5924e-ae2e-43e8-8897-2bc447d17bc2.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":60057281,"duration_in_seconds":4974}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-4756712","title":"#8 - Philosophy of Probability III: Conjectures and Refutations","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/8","content_text":"On the same page at last! Ben comes to the philosophical confessional to announce his probabilistic sins. The Bayesians will be pissed (with high probability). At least Vaden doesn't make him kiss anything. After too much agreement and self-congratulation, Ben and Vaden conclude the mini-series on the philosophy of probability, and \"announce\" an upcoming mega-series on Conjectures and Refutations. References:- My Bayesian Enlightenment by Eliezer YudkowskyRationalist community blogs:- Less Wrong- Slate Star Codex- Marginal RevolutionYell at us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eOn the same page at last! Ben comes to the philosophical confessional to announce his probabilistic sins. The Bayesians will be pissed (with high probability). At least Vaden doesn\u0026apos;t make him kiss anything. After too much agreement and self-congratulation, Ben and Vaden conclude the mini-series on the philosophy of probability, and \u0026quot;announce\u0026quot; an upcoming mega-series on Conjectures and Refutations. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003eReferences:\u003c/b\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ti3Z7eZtud32LhGZT/my-bayesian-enlightenment'\u003eMy Bayesian Enlightenment\u003c/a\u003e by Eliezer Yudkowsky\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003eRationalist community blogs:\u003c/b\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://www.lesswrong.com/'\u003eLess Wrong\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://slatestarcodex.com/'\u003eSlate Star Codex\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://marginalrevolution.com/'\u003eMarginal Revolution\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eYell at us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-07-28T16:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/731a65a4-1cd7-48ee-9cb2-b34a81d168b2.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":51393073,"duration_in_seconds":4252}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-4476590","title":"#7 - Philosophy of Probability II: Existential Risks ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/7","content_text":"Back down to earth we go! Or try to, at least. In this episode Ben and Vaden attempt to ground their previous discussion on the philosophy of probability by focusing on a real-world example, namely the book The Precipice by Toby Ord, recently featured on the Making Sense podcast. Vaden believes in arguments, and Ben argues for beliefs. Quotes\"A common approach to estimating the chance of an unprecedented event with earth-shaking consequences is to take a skeptical stance: to start with an extremely small probability and only raise it from there when a large amount of hard evidence is presented. But I disagree. Instead, I think the right method is to start with a probability that reflects our overall impressions, then adjust this in light of the scientific evidence. When there is a lot of evidence, these approaches converge. But when there isn’t, the starting point can matter. In the case of artificial intelligence, everyone agrees the evidence and arguments are far from watertight, but the question is where does this leave us? Very roughly, my approach is to start with the overall view of the expert community that there is something like a one in two chance that AI agents capable of outperforming humans in almost every task will be developed in the coming century. And conditional on that happening, we shouldn’t be shocked if these agents that outperform us across the board were to inherit our future. Especially if when looking into the details, we see great challenges in aligning these agents with our values.\"- The Precipice, p. 165\"Most of the risks arising from long-term trends remain beyond revealing quantification. What is the probability of China’s spectacular economic expansion stalling or even going into reverse? What is the likelihood that Islamic terrorism will develop into a massive, determined quest to destroy the West? Probability estimates of these outcomes based on expert opinion provide at best some constraining guidelines but do not offer any reliable basis for relative comparisons of diverse events or their interrelations. What is the likelihood that a massive wave of global Islamic terrorism will accelerate the Western transition to non–fossil fuel energies? To what extent will the globalization trend be enhanced or impeded by a faster-than-expected sea level rise or by a precipitous demise of the United States? Setting such odds or multipliers is beyond any meaningful quantification.\" - Global Catastrophes and Trends, p. 226\"And while computers have been used for many years to assemble other  computers and machines, such deployments do not indicate any imminent self- reproductive capability. All those processes require human actions to initiate them,  raw materials to build the hardware, and above all, energy to run them. I find it hard to visualize how those machines would (particularly in less than a generation) launch, integrate, and sustain an entirely independent exploration, extraction, conversion, and delivery of the requisite energies.\"- Global Catastrophes and Trends, p. 26References:- Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years- The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity- Making Sense podcast w/ Ord  (Clip starts around 40:00)- Repugnant conclusion- Arrow's theorem- Balinski–Young theorem","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBack down to earth we go! Or try to, at least. In this episode Ben and Vaden attempt to ground their previous discussion on the philosophy of probability by focusing on a real-world example, namely the book The Precipice by Toby Ord, recently featured on the Making Sense podcast. Vaden believes in arguments, and Ben argues for beliefs. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003eQuotes\u003c/b\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eA common approach to estimating the chance of an unprecedented event with earth-shaking consequences is to take a skeptical stance: to start with an extremely small probability and only raise it from there when a large amount of hard evidence is presented. But I disagree. Instead, I think the right method is to start with a probability that reflects our overall impressions, then adjust this in light of the scientific evidence. When there is a lot of evidence, these approaches converge. But when there isn’t, the starting point can matter. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003eIn the case of artificial intelligence, everyone agrees the evidence and arguments are far from watertight, but the question is where does this leave us? Very roughly, my approach is to start with the overall view of the expert community that there is something like a one in two chance that AI agents capable of outperforming humans in almost every task will be developed in the coming century. And conditional on that happening, we shouldn’t be shocked if these agents that outperform us across the board were to inherit our future. Especially if when looking into the details, we see great challenges in aligning these agents with our values.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026quot;\u003cbr/\u003e- The Precipice, p. 165\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eMost of the risks arising from long-term trends remain beyond revealing quantification. What is the probability of China’s spectacular economic expansion stalling or even going into reverse? What is the likelihood that Islamic terrorism will develop into a massive, determined quest to destroy the West? Probability estimates of these outcomes based on expert opinion provide at best some constraining guidelines but do not offer any reliable basis for relative comparisons of diverse events or their interrelations. What is the likelihood that a massive wave of global Islamic terrorism will accelerate the Western transition to non–fossil fuel energies? To what extent will the globalization trend be enhanced or impeded by a faster-than-expected sea level rise or by a precipitous demise of the United States? Setting such odds or multipliers is beyond any meaningful quantification.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026quot; \u003cbr/\u003e- Global Catastrophes and Trends, p. 226\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eAnd while computers have been used for many years to assemble other  computers and machines, such deployments do not indicate any imminent self- reproductive capability. All those processes require human actions to initiate them,  raw materials to build the hardware, and above all, energy to run them. I find it hard to visualize how those machines would (particularly in less than a generation) launch, integrate, and sustain an entirely independent exploration, extraction, conversion, and delivery of the requisite energies.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- Global Catastrophes and Trends, p. 26\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003eReferences:\u003c/b\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B08BSZ52TN/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8\u0026amp;btkr=1'\u003eGlobal Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07V9GHKYP/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8\u0026amp;btkr=1'\u003eThe Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://samharris.org/podcasts/208-existential-risk/'\u003eMaking Sense podcast w/ Ord\u003c/a\u003e  (Clip starts around 40:00)\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox'\u003eRepugnant conclusion\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem'\u003eArrow\u0026apos;s theorem\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e- \u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_paradox'\u003eBalinski–Young theorem\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-07-07T11:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/07a038fa-d44d-40e6-9942-39879969c038.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":70590859,"duration_in_seconds":5852}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-4407194","title":"#6 - Philosophy of Probability I: Introduction","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/6","content_text":"Don't leave yet - we swear this will be more interesting than it sounds ... ... But a drink will definitely help. Ben and Vaden dive into the interpretations behind probability. What do people mean when they use the word, and why do we use this one tool to describe different concepts. The rowdiness truly kicks in when Vaden releases his pent-up critique of Bayesianism, thereby losing both his friends and PhD position. But at least he's ingratiated himself with Karl Popper. References:Vaden's  Slides on a 1975 paper by Irving John Good titled Explicativity, Corroboration, and the Relative Odds of Hypotheses. The paper is I.J. Good’s response to Karl Popper, and in the presentation I compare the two philosophers’ views on probability, epistemology, induction, simplicity, and content.Diversity in Interpretations of Probability: Implications for Weather ForecastingAndrew Gelman, Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statisticsPopper quote: \"Those who identify confirmation with probability must believe that a high degree of probability is desirable. They implicitly accept the rule: ‘Always choose the most probable hypothesis!’ Now it can be easily shown that this rule is equivalent to the following rule: ‘Always choose the hypothesis which goes as little beyond the evidence as possible!’ And this, in turn, can be shown to be equivalent, not only to ‘Always accept the hypothesis with the lowest content (within the limits of your task, for example, your task of predicting)!’, but also to ‘Always choose the hypothesis which has the highest degree of ad hoc character (within the limits of your task)!’\" (Conjectures and Refutations p.391) Get in touch at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.audio updated 13/12/2020","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eDon\u0026apos;t leave yet - we swear this will be more interesting than it sounds ... \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e... But a drink will definitely help. Ben and Vaden dive into the interpretations behind probability. What do people mean when they use the word, and why do we use this one tool to describe different concepts. The rowdiness truly kicks in when Vaden releases his pent-up critique of Bayesianism, thereby losing both his friends and PhD position. But at least he\u0026apos;s ingratiated himself with Karl Popper. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://vmasrani.github.io/assets/popper_good.pdf'\u003eVaden\u0026apos;s  Slides\u003c/a\u003e on a 1975 \u003ca href='https://www.jstor.org/stable/20115014?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents'\u003epaper\u003c/a\u003e by Irving John Good titled \u003cem\u003eExplicativity, Corroboration, and the Relative Odds of Hypotheses\u003c/em\u003e. The paper is I.J. Good’s response to Karl Popper, and in the presentation I compare the two philosophers’ views on probability, epistemology, induction, simplicity, and content.\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='http://www.mrcc.uqam.ca/Publications/articles/deElia_MWR2005_.pdf'\u003eDiversity in Interpretations of Probability: Implications for Weather Forecasting\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eAndrew Gelman, \u003ca href='http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/philosophy.pdf'\u003ePhilosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003ePopper quote: \u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;Those who identify confirmation with probability must believe that a high degree of probability is desirable. They implicitly accept the rule: ‘Always choose the most probable hypothesis!’ Now it can be easily shown that this rule is equivalent to the following rule: ‘Always choose the hypothesis which goes as little beyond the evidence as possible!’ And this, in turn, can be shown to be equivalent, not only to ‘Always accept the hypothesis with the lowest content (within the limits of your task, for example, your task of predicting)!’, but also to ‘Always choose the hypothesis which has the highest degree of ad hoc character (within the limits of your task)!’\u0026quot; \u003c/em\u003e(Conjectures and Refutations p.391) \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eGet in touch at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cem\u003eaudio updated 13/12/2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-07-01T18:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/eeb49cea-deb7-4957-8f51-8d5f0949c799.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":55868881,"duration_in_seconds":4625}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-4220879","title":"#5 - Incrementalism Revisited: Defund the Police","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/5","content_text":"In their first somber episode, Ben and Vaden discuss the protests and political tensions surrounding the murder of George Floyd. They talk about defunding the police, the importance of philosophy in politics, and honest conversation as the only peaceful means of error-correction. References:  https://8cantwait.org/https://www.8toabolition.com/Study which found that body cameras did not have a statistically significant effect. Errata: Ta-Nehisi Coates quote is \"essential below\" not \"eternal under\". Full quote is: \"It is truly horrible to understand yourself as the essential below of your country.\"Things That Make White People Uncomfortable was written by Michael Bennett, not Michael BarnetLove and complaints both welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eIn their first somber episode, Ben and Vaden discuss the protests and political tensions surrounding the murder of George Floyd. They talk about defunding the police, the importance of philosophy in politics, and honest conversation as the only peaceful means of error-correction. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences:  \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://8cantwait.org/'\u003ehttps://8cantwait.org/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.8toabolition.com/'\u003ehttps://www.8toabolition.com/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/TheLabDC_MPD_BWC_Working_Paper_10.20.17.pdf'\u003eStudy\u003c/a\u003e which found that body cameras did not have a statistically significant effect. \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cem\u003eErrata: \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eTa-Nehisi Coates quote is \u0026quot;essential below\u0026quot; not \u0026quot;eternal under\u0026quot;. Full quote is: \u0026quot;It is truly horrible to understand yourself as the essential below of your country.\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThings That Make White People Uncomfortable\u003c/em\u003e was written by Michael Bennett, not Michael Barnet\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eLove and complaints both welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-06-17T22:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/385fa96f-daa9-4c56-9077-44dbf3fc43f4.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":55681931,"duration_in_seconds":4609}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-4090301","title":"#4 - The Hubris of Computer Scientists","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/4","content_text":"Are computer scientists recklessly applying their methods to other fields without sufficient thoughtfulness? What are computer scientists good for anyway? Ben, in true masochistic fashion, worries that computer scientists are overstepping their bounds. Vaden analyzes his worries with a random forest and determines that they are only 10% accurate, but then proceeds to piss of his entire field by arguing that we're nowhere close to true artificial intelligence. References\"Good\" isn't good enough, Ben Green. \"How close are we to creating artificial intelligence?\", David Deutsch, Aeon\"Artificial Intelligence - The Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet\", Michael Jordan, Medium\"Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal\", Gary MarcusErrata Vaden says \"every logarithmic curve starts with exponential growth\". This should be \"every logistic curve stats with exponential growth\". Vaden says \"95 degree accuracy\". This should be \"95 percent accuracy.\" The three main rationalists were Descarte, Spinoza, and Leibniz, and the three main empiricists were Bacon, Locke, and Hume. (Not whatever Vaden said) ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cp\u003eAre computer scientists recklessly applying their methods to other fields without sufficient thoughtfulness? What are computer scientists good for anyway? Ben, in true masochistic fashion, worries that computer scientists are overstepping their bounds. Vaden analyzes his worries with a random forest and determines that they are only 10% accurate, but then proceeds to piss of his entire field by arguing that we\u0026apos;re nowhere close to true artificial intelligence. \u003cbr/\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u0026quot;\u003ca href='https://www.benzevgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/19-ai4sg.pdf'\u003eGood\u0026quot; isn\u0026apos;t good enough\u003c/a\u003e, Ben Green. \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-to-creating-artificial-intelligence'\u003e\u0026quot;How close are we to creating artificial intelligence?\u0026quot;\u003c/a\u003e, David Deutsch, Aeon\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://medium.com/@mijordan3/artificial-intelligence-the-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet-5e1d5812e1e7'\u003e\u0026quot;Artificial Intelligence - The Revolution Hasn\u0026apos;t Happened Yet\u0026quot;\u003c/a\u003e, Michael Jordan, Medium\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckogtfn6zaI'\u003e\u0026quot;Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal\u0026quot;\u003c/a\u003e, Gary Marcus\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cem\u003eErrata \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eVaden says \u0026quot;every logarithmic curve starts with exponential growth\u0026quot;. This should be \u0026quot;every logistic curve stats with exponential growth\u0026quot;. \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eVaden says \u0026quot;95 degree accuracy\u0026quot;. This should be \u0026quot;95 percent accuracy.\u0026quot; \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eThe three main \u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism#:~:text=In%20philosophy%2C%20rationalism%20is%20the,source%20of%20knowledge%20or%20justification%22.'\u003erationalists\u003c/a\u003e were Descarte, Spinoza, and Leibniz, and the three main \u003ca href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism'\u003eempiricists\u003c/a\u003e were Bacon, Locke, and Hume. (Not whatever Vaden said)\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-06-08T11:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/5a881a37-c6e8-4be8-aea4-dcb1463168f9.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":66114173,"duration_in_seconds":5479}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-3900668","title":"#3 - Incrementalism vs Revolution: Prison Abolition","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/3","content_text":"Ben persuades Vaden that all prisoners should be let loose. Vaden convinces Ben that he shouldn’t use the word “vista” so regularly. At least they stay on topic this time. References: What is the PIC? What is Abolition?, Critical Resistance. Is Prison Necessary? NY Times piece covering Ruth Wilson Gilmore. What is Prison Abolition, The Nation. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cp\u003eBen persuades Vaden that all prisoners should be let loose. Vaden convinces Ben that he shouldn’t use the word “vista” so regularly. At least they stay on topic this time. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences: \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='http://criticalresistance.org/about/not-so-common-language/'\u003eWhat is the PIC? What is Abolition?\u003c/a\u003e, Critical Resistance. \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/magazine/prison-abolition-ruth-wilson-gilmore.html'\u003eIs Prison Necessary?\u003c/a\u003e NY Times piece covering Ruth Wilson Gilmore. \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-is-prison-abolition/'\u003eWhat is Prison Abolition\u003c/a\u003e, The Nation. \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-05-24T18:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/b7c80335-8691-48a1-9d4a-f45740351c7c.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":63800907,"duration_in_seconds":4960}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-3866813","title":"#2 - Consequentialism II: Strange Beliefs","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/2","content_text":"An attempt to clean up the mess we made last episode. Ben still doesn't figure out how not to yell into his microphone, and Vaden finally realizes what Ben was saying and it was … perhaps not so interesting in the first place? Ben, all too pleased with himself, starts yammering on about future generations. Should we care? God — we promise that next week we’ll try to stick to whichever subject we pick. References: Why the long-term future matters, podcast with Toby Ord. ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn attempt to clean up the mess we made last episode. Ben still doesn\u0026apos;t figure out how not to yell into his microphone, and Vaden finally realizes what Ben was saying and it was … perhaps not so interesting in the first place? Ben, all too pleased with himself, starts yammering on about future generations. Should we care? God — we promise that next week we’ll try to stick to whichever subject we pick. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences: \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/why-the-long-run-future-matters-more-than-anything-else-and-what-we-should-do-about-it/'\u003eWhy the long-term future matters\u003c/a\u003e, podcast with Toby Ord. \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-05-21T18:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/8243d2b5-6232-425b-8c8a-7a502b324440.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":64811713,"duration_in_seconds":5370}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-3818885","title":"#1 - Consequentialism I: Epistemic Modesty","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/1","content_text":"We attempt to talk about Epistemic Modesty: broadly, the idea that one should be modest in their beliefs when other people (with similar credentials) disagree with them. Vaden however, entirely immodestly, tries abandoning the subject because he’s scared of Ben’s forceful arguments and derails the conversation on to the entirely uncontroversial subject of which systems of moral decision making are best suited for moral progress. A flabbergasted Ben tries to keep up, but too little too late. Most of the time he's just trying to get his microphone to behave anyway. References:In defence of epistemic modesty; Greg Lewis. Against Modest Epistemology; Eliezer Yudkowski. Podcast with Will MacAskill on moral uncertainty.  ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe attempt to talk about \u003cem\u003eEpistemic Modesty\u003c/em\u003e: broadly, the idea that one should be modest in their beliefs when other people (with similar credentials) disagree with them. Vaden however, entirely immodestly, tries abandoning the subject because he’s scared of Ben’s forceful arguments and derails the conversation on to the entirely uncontroversial subject of which systems of moral decision making are best suited for moral progress. A flabbergasted Ben tries to keep up, but too little too late. Most of the time he\u0026apos;s just trying to get his microphone to behave anyway. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cem\u003eReferences:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WKPd79PESRGZHQ5GY/in-defence-of-epistemic-modesty'\u003eIn defence of epistemic modesty\u003c/a\u003e; Greg Lewis. \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ftshCQDZJ726RtY3s/against-modest-epistemology'\u003eAgainst Modest Epistemology\u003c/a\u003e; Eliezer Yudkowski. \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href='https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/will-macaskill-moral-philosophy/'\u003ePodcast with Will MacAskill on moral uncertainty\u003c/a\u003e.  \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-05-21T16:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/e73d04da-5d22-4097-ae4c-e2502387ad0e.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":48969291,"duration_in_seconds":4040}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-3818783","title":"#0 - Introduction ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/0","content_text":"Ben and Vaden attempt to justify why the world needs another podcast, and fail.  ","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eBen and Vaden attempt to justify why the world needs another podcast, and fail.  \u003c/p\u003e","summary":"","date_published":"2020-05-19T10:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/45338b8e-7c1d-4890-a63b-d00e0e13b608.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":6319533,"duration_in_seconds":496}]}]}