Philosophy Talk

Smart TVs, refrigerators, cars, and entire houses—the internet of things refers to the networking of all the devices in our lives, as they gather data and interact with one another, apparently to make our lives easier and more convenient. As we add more and more smart devices to our network, how will this augmented connectivity affect the way we live? Will these developments transform our world in ways that enrich our lives? Or will they just create more opportunities for hackers, corporations, and governments to pry into every aspect of our lives? Josh and Ken get smart with renowned computer scientist Carl Hewitt, editor of Inconsistency Robustness (Studies in Logic).

Work: a lot lot of people do it, and a lot of people don’t seem to like it very much. But as computers and artificial intelligence get increasingly sophisticated, more and more of our workers will lose their jobs to technology. Should we view this inevitability with hope or with despair? Without the order and purpose that meaningful work provides in our lives, would we end up bored and restless? What obligations does government have to deal with these changes? What about providing all citizens with a basic income? The Philosophers work hard with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, Faculty Director of the Stanford Basic Income Lab.

You’ve probably heard about the dangerous effects of fake news, and the spread of sensational and targeted falsities. But what about “legitimate” news, one might still ask? Well, do you want the “liberal truth” or the “conservative truth”? Just stick to the facts? What if my “facts” differ from yours? Listen to science? Those scientists are all in someone’s pocket, you know. Can we know anything anymore in this age of epistemic nihilism? Have we entered the “post-truth” era? What does this mean for politics, policy, and accountability? The Philosophers don’t fake it with Christopher Meyers from CSU Bakersfield, editor of Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach.

In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or “open” relationships, however, each person is free to love multiple partners at once. Just as our friendships are non-exclusive, advocates of polyamory believe our romantic relationship should be too. So why do so many people find polyamory distasteful, or even despicable? Is it immoral to love more than one person at a time? Or is our society’s commitment to monogamy simply a fossil of tradition that could one day be obsolete? Ken and Ray share the love with Carrie Jenkins from the University of British Columbia, author of What Love Is: And What It Could Be.

From airplanes flying overhead to the cellular activity inside us, all events that take place in the world obey the laws of physics. Physicists seem to be getting closer and closer to understanding the physical laws that govern our universe. But what if our physical laws changed? Could that even be possible? How might changing of physical laws affect us? Or is just that what we take to be laws changes over time? Should we still call the laws of physics “laws”? The philosophers conserve mass with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.

Autonomous vehicles are quickly emerging as the next innovation that will change society in radical ways. Champions of this new technology say that driverless cars, which are programed to obey the law and avoid collisions, will be safer than human controlled vehicles. But how do we program these vehicles to act ethically? Should we trust computer programmers to determine the most ethical response to all possible scenarios the vehicle might encounter? And who should be held responsible for the bad − potentially lethal decisions these cars make? Ken and Laura take the wheel with Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene, author of “Our Driverless Dilemma: When Should Your Car be Willing to Kill You?” Recorded live at Cubberley Auditorium on the Stanford campus with support from the Symbolic Systems Program and the McCoy Center for Ethics in Society.

Aristotle thought that rationality was the faculty that distinguished humans from other animals. However, psychological research shows that our judgments are plagued by systematic, irrational, unconscious errors known as ‘cognitive biases.’ In light of this research, can we really be confident in the superiority of human rationality? How much should we trust our own judgments when we are aware of our susceptibility to bias and error? And does our awareness of these biases obligate us to counter them? Debra and Ken shed their biases with Brian Nosek from the University of Virginia, co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science. Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.

Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism may be a bit much for the beach, but there are lots of readable classics and new titles that could make your summer reading a transformative experience. Stanford literature professor Josh Landy on Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon Philosophy Talk’s film blogger, #FrancisOnFilm (aka Leslie Francis from the University of Utah), on Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and the new TV series based on it Roving Philosophical Reporter Holly J. McDede investigates the graphic novel behind this summer’s blockbuster Wonder Woman movie Other recommendations from the Community of Thinkers

Jürgen Habermas is regarded as one of the last great public intellectuals of Europe and a major contributor to the philosophy of democracy. A member of the Frankfurt School, Habermas argues that humans can have rational communication that will lead to the democratization of society and consensus. But should we be so optimistic? Why does Habermas have faith in our ability to establish this so-called rational communication and to reach consensus? And how should we reform our liberal democracies to make them more democratic? Ray and Ken reach for consensus with Matthew Specter from Central Connecticut State University, author of Habermas: An Intellectual Biography.

Human rights—like freedom from discrimination and slavery— are fundamental rights and freedoms that every person enjoys simply because they’re human. But what about other animals, like monkeys, elephants, and dolphins? Should they enjoy similar fundamental rights? If we can extend the legal notion of personhood to inanimate, abstract objects like corporations, then shouldn’t we also extend it to other sentient creatures? How should we understand the concept of a “person” when it’s applied to nonhumans? What kind of cognitive and emotional complexity is required for nonhuman personhood? John and Ken extend rights to their human guest, Steven Wise, author of Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals. This episode was recorded before a live audience at Stanford University and is viewable on video.