<?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>web02.fireside.fm</fireside:hostname>
    <fireside:genDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 14:13:09 -0500</fireside:genDate>
    <generator>Fireside (https://fireside.fm)</generator>
    <title>Increments - Episodes Tagged with “Verificationism”</title>
    <link>https://www.incrementspodcast.com/tags/verificationism</link>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 17:00:00 -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>#101 (C&amp;R Chap 10, Part IV) - Was Popper Wrong about Verisimilitude?</title>
  <link>https://www.incrementspodcast.com/101</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">e06cffeb-8d9d-4301-bbf3-f758d27c089a</guid>
  <pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 17:00:00 -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/e06cffeb-8d9d-4301-bbf3-f758d27c089a.mp3" length="74497489" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle>Conjectures and refutations, Chapter 10, Part 4 baby. What's the deal with corroboration and verisimilitude?</itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>1:17:01</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/episodes/e/e06cffeb-8d9d-4301-bbf3-f758d27c089a/cover.jpg?v=2"/>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;Wasn't Popper a falsificationist? Then why did he try to develop ideas about corroboration and versimilitude - the extent to which a theory was closer to truth than another theory? Isn't this verging dangerously close to verificationist territory? &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In our fourth ep on Chapter 10 in C&amp;amp;R, we wrestle with Popper's treatment of verisimilutude, both the formal and informal versions. Did the project fail? Was Popper out of his mind? Does this invalidate everything?&lt;/p&gt;

We discuss

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Murders with ball-peen hammers &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Walking the line between verification and falsification&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is science only after truth?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Verisimilutude and its formalization &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Why the formalization fails &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Popper's three requirements for the growth of knowledge&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Popper's ratchet and the no ad-hoc rule &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

Quotes

&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Like many other philosophers I am at times inclined to classify philosophers as belonging to two main groups—those with whom I disagree, and those who agree with me.&lt;br&gt;
- C&amp;amp;R, page 309 &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I shall give here a somewhat unsystematic list of six types of cases in which we should be inclined to say of a theory t1 that it is superseded by t2 in the sense that t2 seems—as far as we know—to correspond better to the facts than t1 , in some sense or other.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt; t2 makes more precise assertions than t1 , and these more precise assertions stand up to more precise tests.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;t2 takes account of, and explains, more facts than t1 (which will include for example the above case that, other things being equal, t2 ’s assertions are more precise).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;t2 describes, or explains, the facts in more detail than t1 .&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;t2 has passed tests which t 1 has failed to pass.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;t2 has suggested new experimental tests, not considered before t 2 was designed (and not suggested by t1 , and perhaps not even applicable to t1 ); and t 2 has passed these tests.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;t2 has uniﬁed or connected various hitherto unrelated problems.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;- C&amp;amp;R, page 315&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Let me ﬁrst say that I do not suggest that the explicit introduction of the idea of verisimilitude will lead to any changes in the theory of method. On the contrary, I think that my theory of testability or corroboration by empirical tests is the proper methodological counterpart to this new metalogical idea. The only improvement is one of clariﬁcation.&lt;br&gt;
- C&amp;amp;R, page 318&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Socials

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Become a patreon subscriber&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://ko-fi.com/increments" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Click dem like buttons on&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;youtube&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;How many chromosomes does diethyl-methyl pentophosphate have, exactly? Tell as at &lt;a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;incrementspodcast@gmail.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>popper, verisimilitude, falsification, verificationism, conjectures-and-refutations, epistemology</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>Wasn't Popper a falsificationist? Then why did he try to develop ideas about corroboration and versimilitude - the extent to which a theory was closer to truth than another theory? Isn't this verging dangerously close to verificationist territory? </p>

<p>In our fourth ep on Chapter 10 in C&amp;R, we wrestle with Popper's treatment of verisimilutude, both the formal and informal versions. Did the project fail? Was Popper out of his mind? Does this invalidate everything?</p>

We discuss

<ul>
<li>Murders with ball-peen hammers </li>
<li>Walking the line between verification and falsification</li>
<li>Is science only after truth?</li>
<li>Verisimilutude and its formalization </li>
<li>Why the formalization fails </li>
<li>Popper's three requirements for the growth of knowledge</li>
<li>Popper's ratchet and the no ad-hoc rule </li>
</ul>

Quotes

<blockquote>
<p>Like many other philosophers I am at times inclined to classify philosophers as belonging to two main groups—those with whom I disagree, and those who agree with me.<br>
- C&amp;R, page 309 </p>

<p>I shall give here a somewhat unsystematic list of six types of cases in which we should be inclined to say of a theory t1 that it is superseded by t2 in the sense that t2 seems—as far as we know—to correspond better to the facts than t1 , in some sense or other.</p>

<ul>
<li> t2 makes more precise assertions than t1 , and these more precise assertions stand up to more precise tests.</li>
<li>t2 takes account of, and explains, more facts than t1 (which will include for example the above case that, other things being equal, t2 ’s assertions are more precise).</li>
<li>t2 describes, or explains, the facts in more detail than t1 .</li>
<li>t2 has passed tests which t 1 has failed to pass.</li>
<li>t2 has suggested new experimental tests, not considered before t 2 was designed (and not suggested by t1 , and perhaps not even applicable to t1 ); and t 2 has passed these tests.</li>
<li>t2 has uniﬁed or connected various hitherto unrelated problems.</li>
</ul>

<p>- C&amp;R, page 315</p>

<p>Let me ﬁrst say that I do not suggest that the explicit introduction of the idea of verisimilitude will lead to any changes in the theory of method. On the contrary, I think that my theory of testability or corroboration by empirical tests is the proper methodological counterpart to this new metalogical idea. The only improvement is one of clariﬁcation.<br>
- C&amp;R, page 318</p>
</blockquote>

Socials

<ul>
<li>Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani</li>
<li>Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link</li>
<li>Become a patreon subscriber&nbsp;<a href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">here</a>. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations&nbsp;<a href="https://ko-fi.com/increments" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">here</a>.</li>
<li>Click dem like buttons on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">youtube</a></li>
</ul>

<p>How many chromosomes does diethyl-methyl pentophosphate have, exactly? Tell as at <a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" target="_blank" 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>Wasn't Popper a falsificationist? Then why did he try to develop ideas about corroboration and versimilitude - the extent to which a theory was closer to truth than another theory? Isn't this verging dangerously close to verificationist territory? </p>

<p>In our fourth ep on Chapter 10 in C&amp;R, we wrestle with Popper's treatment of verisimilutude, both the formal and informal versions. Did the project fail? Was Popper out of his mind? Does this invalidate everything?</p>

We discuss

<ul>
<li>Murders with ball-peen hammers </li>
<li>Walking the line between verification and falsification</li>
<li>Is science only after truth?</li>
<li>Verisimilutude and its formalization </li>
<li>Why the formalization fails </li>
<li>Popper's three requirements for the growth of knowledge</li>
<li>Popper's ratchet and the no ad-hoc rule </li>
</ul>

Quotes

<blockquote>
<p>Like many other philosophers I am at times inclined to classify philosophers as belonging to two main groups—those with whom I disagree, and those who agree with me.<br>
- C&amp;R, page 309 </p>

<p>I shall give here a somewhat unsystematic list of six types of cases in which we should be inclined to say of a theory t1 that it is superseded by t2 in the sense that t2 seems—as far as we know—to correspond better to the facts than t1 , in some sense or other.</p>

<ul>
<li> t2 makes more precise assertions than t1 , and these more precise assertions stand up to more precise tests.</li>
<li>t2 takes account of, and explains, more facts than t1 (which will include for example the above case that, other things being equal, t2 ’s assertions are more precise).</li>
<li>t2 describes, or explains, the facts in more detail than t1 .</li>
<li>t2 has passed tests which t 1 has failed to pass.</li>
<li>t2 has suggested new experimental tests, not considered before t 2 was designed (and not suggested by t1 , and perhaps not even applicable to t1 ); and t 2 has passed these tests.</li>
<li>t2 has uniﬁed or connected various hitherto unrelated problems.</li>
</ul>

<p>- C&amp;R, page 315</p>

<p>Let me ﬁrst say that I do not suggest that the explicit introduction of the idea of verisimilitude will lead to any changes in the theory of method. On the contrary, I think that my theory of testability or corroboration by empirical tests is the proper methodological counterpart to this new metalogical idea. The only improvement is one of clariﬁcation.<br>
- C&amp;R, page 318</p>
</blockquote>

Socials

<ul>
<li>Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani</li>
<li>Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link</li>
<li>Become a patreon subscriber&nbsp;<a href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">here</a>. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations&nbsp;<a href="https://ko-fi.com/increments" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">here</a>.</li>
<li>Click dem like buttons on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">youtube</a></li>
</ul>

<p>How many chromosomes does diethyl-methyl pentophosphate have, exactly? Tell as at <a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" target="_blank" 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>
