<?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>web01.fireside.fm</fireside:hostname>
    <fireside:genDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2026 23:12:59 -0500</fireside:genDate>
    <generator>Fireside (https://fireside.fm)</generator>
    <title>Increments - Episodes Tagged with “Verisimilitude”</title>
    <link>https://www.incrementspodcast.com/tags/verisimilitude</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>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? 
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?
We discuss
Murders with ball-peen hammers 
Walking the line between verification and falsification
Is science only after truth?
Verisimilutude and its formalization 
Why the formalization fails 
Popper's three requirements for the growth of knowledge
Popper's ratchet and the no ad-hoc rule 
Quotes
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.
- C&amp;amp;R, page 309 
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.
-  t2 makes more precise assertions than t1 , and these more precise assertions stand up to more precise tests.
- 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).
- t2 describes, or explains, the facts in more detail than t1 .
- t2 has passed tests which t 1 has failed to pass.
- 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.
- t2 has uniﬁed or connected various hitherto unrelated problems.
- C&amp;amp;R, page 315
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.
- C&amp;amp;R, page 318
Socials
Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
Become a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments).
Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ)
How many chromosomes does diethyl-methyl pentophosphate have, exactly? Tell as at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>popper, verisimilitude, falsification, verificationism, conjectures-and-refutations, epistemology</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>Wasn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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>

<h1>We discuss</h1>

<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&#39;s three requirements for the growth of knowledge</li>
<li>Popper&#39;s ratchet and the no ad-hoc rule </li>
</ul>

<h1>Quotes</h1>

<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>

<h1>Socials</h1>

<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 <a href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations <a href="https://ko-fi.com/increments" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li>
<li>Click dem like buttons on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" rel="nofollow">youtube</a></li>
</ul>

<p>How many chromosomes does diethyl-methyl pentophosphate have, exactly? Tell as at <a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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>

<h1>We discuss</h1>

<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&#39;s three requirements for the growth of knowledge</li>
<li>Popper&#39;s ratchet and the no ad-hoc rule </li>
</ul>

<h1>Quotes</h1>

<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>

<h1>Socials</h1>

<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 <a href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations <a href="https://ko-fi.com/increments" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li>
<li>Click dem like buttons on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" rel="nofollow">youtube</a></li>
</ul>

<p>How many chromosomes does diethyl-methyl pentophosphate have, exactly? Tell as at <a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">incrementspodcast@gmail.com</a></p><p><a rel="payment" href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments">Support Increments</a></p>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
  <title>#95 (C&amp;R Chap 10, Part II) - A Problem-First View of Scientific Progress </title>
  <link>https://www.incrementspodcast.com/95</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">189bdf89-18ae-4bfd-a90b-9adbaa2353d3</guid>
  <pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2025 13:00:00 -0800</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/189bdf89-18ae-4bfd-a90b-9adbaa2353d3.mp3" length="55671326" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle>After unsuccessfully trying to resolve our dispute about Popper's theory of content, we're back for part II of Chapter 10 of the Conjectures and Refutations Series. </itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>57:59</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/1/189bdf89-18ae-4bfd-a90b-9adbaa2353d3/cover.jpg?v=1"/>
  <description>After a long hiatus where we both saw grief counsellors over our fight about Popper's theory of content in the last C&amp;amp;R episode, we are back. And we're ready to play nice ... for about 30 seconds until Vaden admits that two sentences from Popper changed his mind about something Ben had arguing for literally years. 
But eventually putting those disagreements aside, we return to the subject at hand: The Conjectures and Refutations Series: Chapter 10: Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Part II). Here all goes smoothly. Just kidding, we start fighting about content again almost immediately. Where are the guests to break us up when you need them. 
We discuss
Why Vaden changed his mind about "all thought is problem solving" 
Something that rhymes with wero horship 
Is Popper sloppy when it comes to writing about probability and content 
Is all modern data science based on the wrong idea? (Hint: No) 
Popper's problem-focused view of scientific progress 
How much formalization is too much? 
The difference between high verisimilitude and high probability 
Why do we value simplicity in science? 
Historical examples of science progressing via theories with increasing content 
Quotes
Consciousness, world 2, was presumably an evaluating and discerning consciousness, a problem-solving consciousness, right from the start. I have said of the animate part of the physical world 1 that all organisms are problem solvers. My basic assumption regarding world 2 is that this problem-solving activity of the animate part of world 1 resulted in the emergence of world 2, of the world of consciousness. But I do not mean by this that consciousness solves problems all the time, as I asserted of the organisms. On the contrary. The organisms are preoccupied with problem-solving day in, day out, but consciousness is not only concerned with the solving of problems, although that is its most important biological function. My hypothesis is that the original task of consciousness was to anticipate success and failure in problem-solving and to signal to the organism in the form of pleasure and pain whether it was on the right or wrong path to the solution of the problem.
In Search of a Better World, p.17 (emphasis added) 
The criterion of potential satisfactoriness is thus testability, or improbability: only a highly testable or improbable theory is worth testing, and is actually (and not merely potentially) satisfactory if it withstands severe tests—especially those tests to which we could point as crucial for the theory before they were ever undertaken. 
- C&amp;amp;R, Chapter 10 
Consequently there is little merit in formalizing and elaborating a deductive system (intended for use as an empirical science) beyond the requirements of the task of criticizing and testing it, and of comparing it critically with competitors.
- C&amp;amp;R, Chapter 10 
Admittedly, our expectations, and thus our theories, may precede, historically, even our problems. Yet science starts only with problems. Problems crop up especially when we are disappointed in our expectations, or when our theories involve us in diﬃculties, in contradictions; and these may arise either within a theory, or between two diﬀerent theories, or as the result of a clash between our theories and our observations.
- C&amp;amp;R, Chapter 10 
Socials
Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
Become a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments).
Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ)
Is "Ben and Vaden will fight about content" high or low probability? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com  
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>popper, philosophy of science, probability, epistemology, content, simplicity, verisimilitude</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>After a long hiatus where we both saw grief counsellors over our fight about Popper&#39;s theory of content in the last C&amp;R episode, we are back. And we&#39;re ready to play nice ... for about 30 seconds until Vaden admits that two sentences from Popper changed his mind about something Ben had arguing for literally years. </p>

<p>But eventually putting those disagreements aside, we return to the subject at hand: The Conjectures and Refutations Series: Chapter 10: Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Part II). Here all goes smoothly. Just kidding, we start fighting about content again almost immediately. Where are the guests to break us up when you need them. </p>

<h1>We discuss</h1>

<ul>
<li>Why Vaden changed his mind about &quot;all thought is problem solving&quot; </li>
<li>Something that rhymes with wero horship </li>
<li>Is Popper sloppy when it comes to writing about probability and content </li>
<li>Is all modern data science based on the wrong idea? (Hint: No) </li>
<li>Popper&#39;s problem-focused view of scientific progress </li>
<li>How much formalization is too much? </li>
<li>The difference between high verisimilitude and high probability </li>
<li>Why do we value simplicity in science? </li>
<li>Historical examples of science progressing via theories with increasing content </li>
</ul>

<h1>Quotes</h1>

<blockquote>
<p>Consciousness, world 2, was presumably <em>an evaluating and discerning consciousness</em>, a problem-solving consciousness, right from the start. I have said of the animate part of the physical world 1 that all organisms are problem solvers. My basic assumption regarding world 2 is that this problem-solving activity of the animate part of world 1 resulted in the emergence of world 2, of the world of consciousness. But I do not mean by this that consciousness solves problems all the time, as I asserted of the organisms. On the contrary. The organisms are preoccupied with problem-solving day in, day out, but consciousness <em>is not only concerned</em> with the solving of problems, although that is its most important biological function. <strong>My hypothesis is that the original task of consciousness was to anticipate success and failure in problem-solving and to signal to the organism in the form of pleasure and pain whether it was on the right or wrong path to the solution of the problem.</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>In Search of a Better World, p.17 (emphasis added) </li>
</ul>

<p>The criterion of potential satisfactoriness is thus testability, or improbability: only a highly testable or improbable theory is worth testing, and is actually (and not merely potentially) satisfactory if it withstands severe tests—especially those tests to which we could point as crucial for the theory before they were ever undertaken. <br>
- C&amp;R, Chapter 10 </p>

<p>Consequently there is little merit in formalizing and elaborating a deductive system (intended for use as an empirical science) beyond the requirements of the task of criticizing and testing it, and of comparing it critically with competitors.<br>
- C&amp;R, Chapter 10 </p>

<p>Admittedly, our expectations, and thus our theories, may precede, historically, even our problems. Yet science starts only with problems. Problems crop up especially when we are disappointed in our expectations, or when our theories involve us in diﬃculties, in contradictions; and these may arise either within a theory, or between two diﬀerent theories, or as the result of a clash between our theories and our observations.<br>
- C&amp;R, Chapter 10 </p>
</blockquote>

<h1>Socials</h1>

<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 <a href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations <a href="https://ko-fi.com/increments" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li>
<li>Click dem like buttons on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" rel="nofollow">youtube</a></li>
</ul>

<p>Is &quot;Ben and Vaden will fight about content&quot; high or low probability? Tell us at <a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">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>After a long hiatus where we both saw grief counsellors over our fight about Popper&#39;s theory of content in the last C&amp;R episode, we are back. And we&#39;re ready to play nice ... for about 30 seconds until Vaden admits that two sentences from Popper changed his mind about something Ben had arguing for literally years. </p>

<p>But eventually putting those disagreements aside, we return to the subject at hand: The Conjectures and Refutations Series: Chapter 10: Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Part II). Here all goes smoothly. Just kidding, we start fighting about content again almost immediately. Where are the guests to break us up when you need them. </p>

<h1>We discuss</h1>

<ul>
<li>Why Vaden changed his mind about &quot;all thought is problem solving&quot; </li>
<li>Something that rhymes with wero horship </li>
<li>Is Popper sloppy when it comes to writing about probability and content </li>
<li>Is all modern data science based on the wrong idea? (Hint: No) </li>
<li>Popper&#39;s problem-focused view of scientific progress </li>
<li>How much formalization is too much? </li>
<li>The difference between high verisimilitude and high probability </li>
<li>Why do we value simplicity in science? </li>
<li>Historical examples of science progressing via theories with increasing content </li>
</ul>

<h1>Quotes</h1>

<blockquote>
<p>Consciousness, world 2, was presumably <em>an evaluating and discerning consciousness</em>, a problem-solving consciousness, right from the start. I have said of the animate part of the physical world 1 that all organisms are problem solvers. My basic assumption regarding world 2 is that this problem-solving activity of the animate part of world 1 resulted in the emergence of world 2, of the world of consciousness. But I do not mean by this that consciousness solves problems all the time, as I asserted of the organisms. On the contrary. The organisms are preoccupied with problem-solving day in, day out, but consciousness <em>is not only concerned</em> with the solving of problems, although that is its most important biological function. <strong>My hypothesis is that the original task of consciousness was to anticipate success and failure in problem-solving and to signal to the organism in the form of pleasure and pain whether it was on the right or wrong path to the solution of the problem.</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>In Search of a Better World, p.17 (emphasis added) </li>
</ul>

<p>The criterion of potential satisfactoriness is thus testability, or improbability: only a highly testable or improbable theory is worth testing, and is actually (and not merely potentially) satisfactory if it withstands severe tests—especially those tests to which we could point as crucial for the theory before they were ever undertaken. <br>
- C&amp;R, Chapter 10 </p>

<p>Consequently there is little merit in formalizing and elaborating a deductive system (intended for use as an empirical science) beyond the requirements of the task of criticizing and testing it, and of comparing it critically with competitors.<br>
- C&amp;R, Chapter 10 </p>

<p>Admittedly, our expectations, and thus our theories, may precede, historically, even our problems. Yet science starts only with problems. Problems crop up especially when we are disappointed in our expectations, or when our theories involve us in diﬃculties, in contradictions; and these may arise either within a theory, or between two diﬀerent theories, or as the result of a clash between our theories and our observations.<br>
- C&amp;R, Chapter 10 </p>
</blockquote>

<h1>Socials</h1>

<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 <a href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations <a href="https://ko-fi.com/increments" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li>
<li>Click dem like buttons on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" rel="nofollow">youtube</a></li>
</ul>

<p>Is &quot;Ben and Vaden will fight about content&quot; high or low probability? Tell us at <a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">incrementspodcast@gmail.com</a> </p><p><a rel="payment" href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments">Support Increments</a></p>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
  </channel>
</rss>
