<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" encoding="UTF-8" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:fireside="http://fireside.fm/modules/rss/fireside">
  <channel>
    <fireside:hostname>app01</fireside:hostname>
    <fireside:genDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 13:36:56 +0000</fireside:genDate>
    <generator>Fireside (https://fireside.fm)</generator>
    <title>Increments - Episodes Tagged with “Rules Of Inference”</title>
    <link>https://www.incrementspodcast.com/tags/rules%20of%20inference</link>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2021 01:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
    <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. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
    <itunes:subtitle>Science, Philosophy, Epistemology, Mayhem</itunes:subtitle>
    <itunes:author>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</itunes:author>
    <itunes:summary>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. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.</itunes:summary>
    <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/3/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/cover.jpg?v=18"/>
    <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
    <itunes:keywords>Philosophy,Science,Ethics,Progress,Knowledge,Computer Science,Conversation,Error-Correction</itunes:keywords>
    <itunes:owner>
      <itunes:name>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</itunes:name>
      <itunes:email>incrementspodcast@gmail.com</itunes:email>
    </itunes:owner>
<itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture">
  <itunes:category text="Philosophy"/>
</itunes:category>
<itunes:category text="Science"/>
<item>
  <title>#28 (C&amp;R Series, Ch. 9) - Why is Logic Applicable to Reality?</title>
  <link>https://www.incrementspodcast.com/28</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">99e52867-1669-4c24-ad72-bcedab880c07</guid>
  <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2021 01:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
  <author>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</author>
  <enclosure 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" length="44221753" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle>We discuss Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?</itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>1:01:25</itunes:duration>
  <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
  <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/3/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/cover.jpg?v=18"/>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;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? &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;To answer these questions, we dive into Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: &lt;em&gt;Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But before we get to that, we touch on some of the good stuff: evolutionary psychology, cunnilingus, and why Robin is better than Batman. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;References&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 9: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality? &lt;a href="https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.doexplain.org/episodes/311-nonuniversal-explainers-with-ben-chugg" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;Ben on Do Explain with Christofer Lovgren&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8&amp;amp;ab_channel=HarvardUniversity" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;Debate&lt;/a&gt; between Spelke and Pinker&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Very Bad Wizards discussing the paper "Oral Sex as Infidelity detection" (&lt;a href="https://www.verybadwizards.com/216" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;episode&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Pham-Shackelford-PAID-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;paper&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Sturgeon's Law: &lt;a 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 noopener"&gt;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law#:~:text=Sturgeon%27s%20law%20(or%20Sturgeon%27s%20revelation,science%20fiction%20author%20and%20critic&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Eugene Wigner's &lt;a href="https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/%7Ev1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;paper&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;The Unreasonable Effective of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Stoic versus Aristotelian logic. &lt;a href="https://www.uvm.edu/%7Ejbailly/courses/196Stoicism/notes/StoicLogic.html" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a nice discussion of the differences between the two. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Rob Wiblin's &lt;a href="https://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1345800502093766657" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;tweet&lt;/a&gt; that all probabilities are subjective probabilities (in an otherwise very good thread). &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Buhler's three functions of language: (i) Expressive, (ii) Signaling, and (iii) Descriptive. See the &lt;a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organon_model#:%7E:text=B%C3%BChler's%20work%20influenced%20Roman%20Jakobson,the%20representation%20function%20(Darstellungsfunktion)" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;"Organon Model"&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/06/youre-probably-not-galileo-scientific-advance-rarely-comes-from-lone-contrarian-outsiders/" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;Piece&lt;/a&gt; on Brett Weinstein and Ivermectin.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quotes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;“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.” &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;“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.” &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Send us the most bizarre use of evolutionary psychology you've seen at &lt;a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;incrementspodcast@gmail.com&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>logic, rules of inference, arithmetic, philosophy of mathematics</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>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? </p>

<p>To answer these questions, we dive into Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: <em>Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?</em>. </p>

<p>But before we get to that, we touch on some of the good stuff: evolutionary psychology, cunnilingus, and why Robin is better than Batman. </p>

<p><strong>References</strong>: </p>

<ul>
<li>Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 9: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality? <a href="https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noopener">https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.doexplain.org/episodes/311-nonuniversal-explainers-with-ben-chugg" rel="nofollow noopener">Ben on Do Explain with Christofer Lovgren</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8&amp;ab_channel=HarvardUniversity" rel="nofollow noopener">Debate</a> between Spelke and Pinker</li>
<li>Very Bad Wizards discussing the paper "Oral Sex as Infidelity detection" (<a href="https://www.verybadwizards.com/216" rel="nofollow noopener">episode</a>, <a href="https://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Pham-Shackelford-PAID-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener">paper</a>). </li>
<li>Sturgeon's Law: <a 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 noopener">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law#:~:text=Sturgeon%27s%20law%20(or%20Sturgeon%27s%20revelation,science%20fiction%20author%20and%20critic</a>.</li>
<li>Eugene Wigner's <a href="https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/%7Ev1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener">paper</a> <em>The Unreasonable Effective of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences</em>. </li>
<li>Stoic versus Aristotelian logic. <a href="https://www.uvm.edu/%7Ejbailly/courses/196Stoicism/notes/StoicLogic.html" rel="nofollow noopener">Here</a> is a nice discussion of the differences between the two. </li>
<li>Rob Wiblin's <a href="https://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1345800502093766657" rel="nofollow noopener">tweet</a> that all probabilities are subjective probabilities (in an otherwise very good thread). </li>
<li>Buhler's three functions of language: (i) Expressive, (ii) Signaling, and (iii) Descriptive. See the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organon_model#:%7E:text=B%C3%BChler's%20work%20influenced%20Roman%20Jakobson,the%20representation%20function%20(Darstellungsfunktion)" rel="nofollow noopener">"Organon Model"</a>. </li>
<li><a href="https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/06/youre-probably-not-galileo-scientific-advance-rarely-comes-from-lone-contrarian-outsiders/" rel="nofollow noopener">Piece</a> on Brett Weinstein and Ivermectin.<br></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Quotes:</strong></p>

<p>“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.” </p>

<p>“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.” </p>

<p>Send us the most bizarre use of evolutionary psychology you've seen at <a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow noopener">incrementspodcast@gmail.com</a>. </p><p><a rel="payment" href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments">Support Increments</a></p>]]>
  </content:encoded>
  <itunes:summary>
    <![CDATA[<p>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? </p>

<p>To answer these questions, we dive into Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: <em>Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?</em>. </p>

<p>But before we get to that, we touch on some of the good stuff: evolutionary psychology, cunnilingus, and why Robin is better than Batman. </p>

<p><strong>References</strong>: </p>

<ul>
<li>Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 9: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality? <a href="https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noopener">https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.doexplain.org/episodes/311-nonuniversal-explainers-with-ben-chugg" rel="nofollow noopener">Ben on Do Explain with Christofer Lovgren</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8&amp;ab_channel=HarvardUniversity" rel="nofollow noopener">Debate</a> between Spelke and Pinker</li>
<li>Very Bad Wizards discussing the paper "Oral Sex as Infidelity detection" (<a href="https://www.verybadwizards.com/216" rel="nofollow noopener">episode</a>, <a href="https://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Pham-Shackelford-PAID-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener">paper</a>). </li>
<li>Sturgeon's Law: <a 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 noopener">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law#:~:text=Sturgeon%27s%20law%20(or%20Sturgeon%27s%20revelation,science%20fiction%20author%20and%20critic</a>.</li>
<li>Eugene Wigner's <a href="https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/%7Ev1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener">paper</a> <em>The Unreasonable Effective of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences</em>. </li>
<li>Stoic versus Aristotelian logic. <a href="https://www.uvm.edu/%7Ejbailly/courses/196Stoicism/notes/StoicLogic.html" rel="nofollow noopener">Here</a> is a nice discussion of the differences between the two. </li>
<li>Rob Wiblin's <a href="https://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1345800502093766657" rel="nofollow noopener">tweet</a> that all probabilities are subjective probabilities (in an otherwise very good thread). </li>
<li>Buhler's three functions of language: (i) Expressive, (ii) Signaling, and (iii) Descriptive. See the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organon_model#:%7E:text=B%C3%BChler's%20work%20influenced%20Roman%20Jakobson,the%20representation%20function%20(Darstellungsfunktion)" rel="nofollow noopener">"Organon Model"</a>. </li>
<li><a href="https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/06/youre-probably-not-galileo-scientific-advance-rarely-comes-from-lone-contrarian-outsiders/" rel="nofollow noopener">Piece</a> on Brett Weinstein and Ivermectin.<br></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Quotes:</strong></p>

<p>“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.” </p>

<p>“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.” </p>

<p>Send us the most bizarre use of evolutionary psychology you've seen at <a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow noopener">incrementspodcast@gmail.com</a>. </p><p><a rel="payment" href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments">Support Increments</a></p>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
  </channel>
</rss>
