Tamler Sommers, a Professor of philosophy at the University of Houston and co-host of the Very Bad Wizards podcast, dives deep into the philosophical conundrum of induction. He challenges the idea of whether regularities exist in nature and debates Popper's controversial solution to this age-old problem. Expect lively discussions on the difference between certainty and justification, the reliability of predictions, and the intriguing intersection of science with meditation. With humor and insight, the conversation navigates the complexities of scientific theories and our understanding of reality.
01:41:13
forum Ask episode
web_stories AI Snips
view_agenda Chapters
auto_awesome Transcript
info_circle Episode notes
insights INSIGHT
Popper on Prediction
Popper views prediction as secondary to explanation in theory evaluation.
Trustworthy theories posit coherent world structures subjected to tests, prioritizing explanatory power.
insights INSIGHT
Gravity Example
Preferring gravity over "upside-down gravity" is based on explanatory power.
The latter requires explaining the sudden reversal, creating more unexplained phenomena.
insights INSIGHT
Criticism over Falsification
Popper prioritizes criticism over falsification in epistemology.
Criticism filters out weak theories before reaching rare falsifiable predictions.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
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"?
(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.)
Vaden 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.
Socials
Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @tamler
Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
Trust 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.
If 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
Image credit: From this Aeon essay on Hume. Illustration by Petra Eriksson at Handsome Frank.
Increments 