Rationally Speaking #20 - Q&A With Massimo and Julia
Oct 24, 2010
auto_awesome
Massimo and Julia answer listener questions on rationality, changing opinions, biases in debates, morality of bestiality, and solving the induction problem. They recommend philosophy sources like Stanford Encyclopedia and discuss influential philosophical works.
Balancing rationality with emotions, skeptics question overemphasizing science.
Politics intertwined with rationality, values shape rational policy-making and discourse.
Moral values exceed science's scope, human well-being doesn't solely define morality.
Deep dives
Rationality: Striking a Balance Between Rationality and Emotions
The discussion delves into the balance between rationality and emotions, questioning whether skeptics overemphasize science and rationality. The host counters the notion that overdoing rationality is harmful, emphasizing that rationality should aim for the best results given the circumstances. They use examples to illustrate the cost-benefit analysis of information gathering and decision-making, highlighting the importance of understanding the rationality behind actions.
Politics and Rational Discourse
The episode explores the intersection of politics and rationality, contemplating how values influence rational policy-making. The hosts delve into the demarcation problem for skeptics, analyzing topics suitable for rational discourse. They discuss the challenges of political debates involving empirical evidence, contrasting conflicting values in determining rational policies.
Science and Moral Values: The Moral Landscape Debate
The conversation scrutinizes Sam Harris's book 'The Moral Landscape' and the role of science in determining moral values. The hosts critique the assertion that science alone can define moral behavior, arguing that moral values extend beyond empirical evidence. They raise concerns about equating human well-being with moral judgments and the complexities of moral systems' foundations.
The distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism
Methodological naturalism in science does not necessarily entail philosophical naturalism. Scientists can adhere to methodological naturalism while personally holding other beliefs. This distinction allows for the exclusion of supernatural explanations in scientific inquiry to maintain testability and usefulness, without mandating philosophical commitments.
Exploring different types of induction in philosophy and science
Induction in scientific reasoning encompasses various types, including enumerative induction, strong inference, and abduction. While enumerative induction is limited and akin to extrapolation, strong inference decisively resolves between alternatives. Abduction, the most common form of scientific induction, creates provisional conclusions based on evidence, reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes' deductive methods. The need for assuming the uniformity of nature underlies scientific reasoning, highlighting the complexity of addressing the problem of induction.
Massimo and Julia answer listeners' questions. In this installment the topics include: can political discourse be rational, who changed M&J's opinion on something and when have they changed someone's opinion, how do they guard against biases when they debate people, the morality of bestiality, and did Samir Okasha really solve the induction problem?
Plus, M&J's favorite sources for philosophy:
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - philpapers.org - An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding by David Hume - Language, Truth, and Logic by Alfred Jules Ayer - Mortal Questions byThomas Nagel - Practical Ethics by Peter Singer
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
