#59 (C&R, Chap 8) - On the Status of Science and Metaphysics (Plus reflections on the Brett Hall blog exchange)
Dec 22, 2023
auto_awesome
Dive into a lively analysis of why induction might be a philosophical dead end! Discover how historical giants like Kant and Newton shaped our understanding of science. Explore Kepler's elliptical orbits and the tension between finite observations and limitless theories. The hosts express their frustrations over a failed blog exchange, dissecting themes in Austrian economics and critique the concept of irrefutable theories. It’s an engaging exploration that blends humor with deep philosophical insights!
The podcast illustrates how engaging children in problem-solving tasks promotes creativity and independence rather than simply fulfilling their requests.
Contention surrounding Austrian economics underscores the difficulties in aligning theoretical models with predictive reasoning in real-world scenarios.
Discussions on irrefutability highlight the necessity for critical engagement in debates, suggesting that theories can invite scrutiny despite their irrefutable nature.
Deep dives
The Importance of Problem Solving in Childhood
Teaching children problem-solving skills is crucial for their development. An example shared illustrates how a child was seeking food, but rather than simply providing it, engaging her in tidying toys proved to be a fruitful alternative. This activity not only distracted her from her initial request but also enabled her to learn a valuable skill. By replacing boredom with an engaging task, parents can foster creativity and independence in their children.
The Complexity of Engaging in Austrian Economics Debate
The recent public exchange regarding Austrian economics was characterized as contentious and drawn-out. A deep dive into the motivations behind Austrian economic models was highlighted, particularly in light of the new Argentine president. The dialogue reflects a broader skepticism towards making predictions within this economic framework, with critiques emerging about the reluctance of Austrian economists to embrace predictive reasoning. Such discussions point towards the challenges faced in reconciling theoretical economic models with real-world events.
Effective Communication in Theoretical Debate
The podcast emphasizes the necessity of direct engagement and clear communication in theoretical debates. A specific interaction highlighted the importance of responding to one's opponent's arguments to foster meaningful discourse. When one party fails to reference opposing views in their rebuttal, it reflects an unwillingness to engage earnestly in the conversation. Effective debate requires an understanding that engaging critically with counter-arguments can enrich the discussion.
Angelic Theories and the Scientific Method
A significant critique emerges surrounding the limitations of constructing scientific theories based solely on observation and inductive reasoning. Historical examples illustrate that both Newton's and Einstein's theories arose from conjecture and creative thinking rather than pure observation. The case is made that scientific advancement necessitates a degree of creativity in forming hypotheses, rather than relying entirely on empirical data. This underscores the importance of theoretical exploration in the scientific method, paving the way for future advancements.
Understanding the Role of Irrefutability in Theoretical Discourse
The concept of irrefutability raises questions about the validity of philosophical theories in comparison to scientific theories. In discussing irrefutable theories like determinism and idealism, the podcast explores whether it is possible to claim them as false despite their irrefutable nature. The importance of criticism and argumentative discourse in evaluating theories is emphasized, suggesting that theories can still be critiqued even if they cannot be logically disproven. This highlights the nuanced relationship between irrefutability and the merit of theoretical claims.
Navigating the Fields of Falsifiability and Cultural Influence
Falsifiability is not just a characteristic intrinsic to the theory; rather, it is influenced by societal and psychological factors as well. Discussions concerning astrology or religion often reveal that the theories involved can mutate and adapt based on critical arguments and societal norms, complicating their categorical assessment of falsifiability. This dynamic suggests that the engagement of individuals and cultures with certain theories plays a pivotal role in shaping their reception and validity. The interplay of logic, culture, and individual interpretation underscores the complexity found within theoretical discourse.
Back to the C&R series baby! Feels goooooood. Need some bar-room explanations for why induction is impossible? We gotchu. Need some historical background on where your boy Isaac got his ideas? We gotchu. Need to know how to refute the irrefutable? Gotchu there too homie, because today we're diving into Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 8: On the Status of Science and Metaphysics.
Oh, and we also discuss, in admittedly frustrated tones, the failed blog exchange between Brett Hall and Vaden on prediction and Austrianism. If you want the full listening experience, we suggest reading both posts before hearing our kvetching:
Hold on to your hats for this one listeners, because she starts off rather spicy.
We discuss
Why Kant believed in the truth of Newtonian mechanics
Newton and his assertion that he arrived at his theory via induction
Why this isn't true and is logically impossible
Was Copernicus influenced by Platonic ideals?
How Kepler came up with the idea of elliptical orbits
Why finite observations are always compatible with infinitely many theories
Kant's paradox and his solution
Popper's updated solution to Kant's paradox
The irrefutability of philosophical theories
How can we say that irrefutable theories are false?
Annnnnd perhaps a few cheap shots here and there about Austrian Economics as well.
# References
Some background history on Copernicus and why Ben thinks Popper is wrong
Quotes
Listening to this statement you may well wonder how I can possibly hold a theory to be false and irrefutable at one and the same time—I who claim to be a rationalist. For how can a rationalist say of a theory that it is false and irrefutable? Is he not bound, as a rationalist, to refute a theory before he asserts that it is false? And conversely, is he not bound to admit that if a theory is irrefutable, it is true?
Now if we look upon a theory as a proposed solution to a set of problems, then the theory immediately lends itself to critical discussion—even if it is non-empirical and irrefutable. For we can now ask questions such as, Does it solve the problem? Does it solve it better than other theories? Has it perhaps merely shifted the problem? Is the solution simple? Is it fruitful? Does it perhaps contradict other philosophical theories needed for solving other problems?
Because, as you [Kant] said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes con- sciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. These ideas, it is true, are produced by us, and not by the world around us; they are not merely the traces of repeated sensations or stimuli or what not; here you were right. But we are more active and free than even you believed; for similar observations or similar environmental situations do not, as your theory implied, produce similar explanations in different men. Nor is the fact that we create our theories, and that we attempt to impose them upon the world, an explanation of their success, as you believed. For the overwhelming majority of our theories, of our freely invented ideas, are unsuccessful; they do not stand up to searching tests, and are discarded as falsified by experience. Only a very few of them succeed, for a time, in the competitive struggle for survival.
\
C&R Chapter 2
Socials
Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
Help us fund more hour-long blog posts and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover anger management here.
