Видео

50:50. The difference that you might perceive in imagining whether an ant is on the outside of a donut or inside the donut nor neither.

Seems to me Popper has correspondence but this is better thought of as approximation. We endeavor to identify error and in so doing get a better guess. I agree with Kant we never know a thing in itself. As for realism and truth, I think we best consider utility. A better guess has better utility in the real world.

David would write SCIENCE FICTION books/novels. It suits him, I guess. 😊

A principled attempt to create a philosophy of child-rearing which excludes love.

Loved this

Distracting background, to put it mildly.

i am curious about an actual working solution for the crisp problem, because that is something that can definitely happen in this day and age. if it were me i would find out their motives and try and convince them based on their own values - ie maybe they just want to swim in a room of crisps - probably doable for a few thousand.

Modern Galileo and so charismatic 😍

16:31 “We’re striving to eliminate error … we’re not aspiring to be able to utter true statements. We’re aspiring to eliminate false statements from the things that we say, which always leaves more false statements and we can’t be sure we haven’t eliminated a true statement” 17:56 “We guess that our statement is some kind of indicator of the abstraction” 21:00 “My problem is: if truth is correspondence with the facts, how can a statement - which is incapable of being true or false - correspond to a fact, which is either there or is not?”

I'm a retired Old Fart and lay philosopher and I heartily second @aaspookyaa's comment! IMO we humans are very dependent upon in-depth outside-the-square thinking such as Chiara Marletto's for our future survival and thriving!

"Unwanted answers to unasked questions" Brilliant quote. In Denmark the youth culture have invented the perfect response: They simply says "asked?" Which mean something like "I didn't ask for your advise"

english being a second language is a barrier to the clear expression of ideas imo

Smile

Vivek I wrote you that the first time I saw your videos that this should be taught in school how to treath our kids how and I can only repeat myself cause I still think that is the most important thing that I have ever learned. So thank you cause I feel enlightened.

32:16 This graph shows expected costs for the next 500 years, for different temperature scenarios by 2100, and is fig 11.6 in the book 'False Alarm'. I believe it is misleading. Costs associated with mitigating against climate change (grey) are mainly the cost of transitioning to, and continuing to use, renewable energies. For the 'no policy' scenario, the graph does not include any costs associated with transitioning to renewables. However, I believe this is wrong. There is an estimated 50 years of gas and oil left in the world, and perhaps 140 years of coal, at current consumption rates, so even for 'no policy' there is a complete transition to, and use of, renewables for at least 360 of those 500 years, along with the associated costs. Once this is factored in, 'no policy' is likely to have similar 500 year costs to those associated with rapid transition.

What did Popper think about the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics? (I realize this is off topic here but, given that those are David Deutsch and the Carl Popper Society, it's a very spontaneous question!)

Thank you so much

Loved this one too!❤️

Poor volume

I am persuaded by elements of TCS, but Sarah Fitz-Claridge is strawmanning the idea about setting limits (perhaps unintentionally). The way to set boundaries is to define them in the first person, as in “I can’t let you do x”, not “you can’t do x”. This is not covert limit-setting, it’s honest. For instance consider the example: “I understand why you’re frustrated but I can’t let you keep hitting your baby brother or you are going to injure him, and I am not okay with that”. This seems both necessary and healthy as an approach to parenting. What would the TCS alternative be? I’ve watched both of the TCS videos from the Karl Popper society, and none of the examples in the videos seem to address parenting moments like this.

Right, but if my child decides they don’t want to wipe their bum (which they literally did the other day) she might suffer some discomfort, but I might have social services called on me. The difference between and adult-child relationship and the spousal one you frequently use as an analogy, is that adults willl be held responsible of their children’s actions. And whilst my two year old is frequently open to the idea of finding a solution to disagreements, she isn’t always (my suggestion that she wipe her bum was met with literal violence and a refusal to discuss it). When she is old enough to be held accountable for her own hygiene, she can do as she wills. Until that day she is wiping her arse whatever her theories on it are 🙄

I followed that whole discussion that Danny frederick and Miller had, and Miller did have the better of that debate. Containment in popper is a technical term, trying to analyse it through the metaphorical is not really that good. You have to understand quite a bit about Tarski's theory of deductive systems, so it can get quite technical quite quickly. Why can't a set of information you have contain another set of information? Danny seems to object to it with nothing but I do not like spatial metaphors and some historical ruminations of its origin.

theories are not made up of concepts.

Scientific theories don't work in the way Deutsch thinks. Scientific theories rule out possibilities in detail, but they don't say much about what is there.

THe intuitive sense of content is false, though. You can't just say, well not in Popper's notion of content, just in the intuitive sense. It was the intutive sense that Popper was criticising.

Deutsch: things fly because theories make them fly. LOL

Scientific theories do not contain technological inventions. Why are Popperians so susceptible to inductivist mythology.

That is not true Deutsch. Things fly because the laws of physics permits them to. If our theories did not contain truth, it would still be possible for us to build ships that worked, if only by accident.

I corrected Danny on his view of Miller and he seemed to relent, but we did not get to talk it out further, which was unfortunate.

Miller already dealt with all of these muddles. He talks about truth and acceptance as truth. He put the point like this: justificationists believe that there is some process whereby we come to accept something or accept something as true (this is inductive methodology at its purist), but this is a confusion, we just accept something and the conjecture about its truth comes along with it. There is no process of acceptance, only a proccess of rejection.

The problem that is happening here is that neither Frederick nor Deutsch have took to heart Miller's critique of reasons (whether sufficient or good). Danny frederick keeps saying there are reasons (in some epsitemic sense) for accepting claims about consistency and inconsistency. But there aren't, they either lead to an infinite regress, or are blatantly question begging. There aren't even according to miller "negative" reasons, reasons for rejecting. It just makes the same mistake. Miller's point moreover is that investigation isnt arbitrary, since it is constrained throughout by our desire to find truth. You get rid of truth and there is no constraint. Truth plays exactly the role that Danny thinks "good explanations" do. But good explanations can be good and false. So the determination of whether to reject is always a decision about its truth or falsity, or more generally about its approximate truth. Not about its inconsistency, and rejection is not determined by inconsistency, since what are you going to reject? It is a decision about what is true or false that determines what you reject. How else can it be explained?

Tennet got a bit lost I think after her very good challenge.

And you might have made a mistake in the claim that something was true. It doesn't, exactly the same in this case of consistency, prevent you from saying it is true (consistent) false (inconsistent).

Tannet made a very good point and Danny was about to use the same argument used against his position against what she said. Then just backtracked and made an inductivist claim followed by conventionalist one.

The word "necessarily" is doing a lot of work for Danny. We are not saying it is necessary that if something contradicts an observation statement that it is false, and we don't need it to be necessarily the case for it to be the case.

The justificationist addiction is powerful.

WHich Popperian claims that we can know what is true?

That old criticism. meh

As a person who's been at school, I agree with Peter. Introspecting about myself, I cant deny that school did a lot to dampen my desire to learn. Left to my own devices I read constantly but I specifically hated reading when it had to do with school work becauee shcool was a source of pressure to perform according to arbitrary standards. Plus I either forgot or dont even use most of what i learned in school so to be frank most of it was a waste of my time. Everything I needed to know (with the exeptions is basics like math and English) I either learned for the first time or relearned at university or at work.

Once again, a fascinating musing from David. The only problem with the theory that comes to mind is how do statements exist, ontologically speaking, if they are not themselves abstractions (propositions)? David mentions that statements are physical entities (like audible vibrations or pen marks) that get interpreted into abstractions, but the concept of "physical" is itself an abstraction that we think describes/corresponds to reality. I just wanted clarity on this issue, as the idea currently seems internally inconsistent. Perhaps, statements are abstractions that exists at a different level of emergence? the realm of "meaning"?

David's theory is similar to Hilary Lawson's theory of closures from analytical philosophy. They both presume that statements expressed in natural language can never precisely refer to abstractions/reality. Hilary and David both have Oxford roots.

This would be amazing as a podcast, is there an audio only version somewhere?

This is fascinating and gives me a lot to think about. With the graffiti example I’m thinking about how identity privileges effect this parenting. If I were to go out at 2am dressed in black with my child I would face a lot less risk than perhaps a Black parent and their kid in a hoodie at night. That parent may face arrest, their child being take away, or even being shot by police.

Good luck in this lee your up against prohibition laws placed on USA public schools. Evaluationary mythology gets in the way of thinking this way as it pushes thus subjective human view onto everything and everywhere. Its so broad in context now that it can mean many things. Its even become a dogmatic faith and belief system used to see the world and beyond. Some people Can't go 3 paragraphs without invoking it or deep time & selection .

With our language including math being so tuned for approximation in our study of the creation and how to convey it im not surprised something so paradoxical working within probability is difficult .. That said we have strayed from these goals. The movement of Digging back up old dualism and reversing well established phylosphy that had done a great job unifying the ancient dualism that held the greeks back. Was a mistake ! Our representation of time is falss. Nothing exciting happens in gradualism. Its safe for us but all the amazement happens in extreme critical states .

No where becomes now here by movement of a space. Sounds like teleportation.

Great see new conversations on this channel! There isn't enough content about TCS out there.

You all bring me peace, not just by what you are saying but how you say it! Kids have rights and that is at the top of the list of why we should not be overpowering them. And if we are to truly collaborate in a relationship together, we need to focus on connection and their rights. Nobody truly grows in a power over situation, not even the one overpowering as they stay stuck in their own perception and mindset.

Thanks. I lov Smolin.

“why we treat our spouse differently than a child?” Well because it’s an adult? Speaker uses inadequate comparison: it takes time for a child to develop(captain obvious) so it can be treated as an adult.