The speakers explore the concept of objectivity, discussing their beliefs on various subjects and referencing examples from popular culture. They delve into the nature of objective truth in science, emphasizing the role of replicability and the assumption of naive realism. They also discuss the relationship between scientists and philosophers of science, examining how objectivity can be determined by a specific set of people based on certain criteria.
Dave and Tamler try to figure out what we talk about when we talk about objectivity. In past episodes we’ve claimed that logic and science (when it isn't fraudulent) are objective. Tamler has claimed repeatedly that "Louie" is an objectively better TV show than "Jessie." Dave is constantly claiming that Kant is objectively the best philosopher. But to be honest, we say these things without being exactly sure what we’re saying. Today we try to be sure--only to get more confused.
Plus, we get into a big fight over trigger warnings, the Kipnis affair at Northwestern, and other related issues. (The infamous Episode 45 was an ecstasy-fueled love fest in comparison.) However, we have spared our listeners the drama, and have only included a few lowlights. If you listen closely, you can even hear Tamler apologize.
Links
Support Very Bad Wizards