#75 - The Problem of Induction, Relitigated (w/ Tamler Sommers)
Oct 23, 2024
auto_awesome
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.
The podcast discusses the Problem of Induction, highlighting the philosophical debate on justifying inductive reasoning beyond past experiences.
Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability challenges traditional reliance on inductive reasoning by advocating for rigorous testing of scientific theories.
The conversation explores the tension between experiential practices like meditation and scientific methodologies in understanding consciousness and reality.
Deep dives
The Challenges of Statistical Misuse
The conversation begins with an exploration of the challenges surrounding the misuse of statistics, particularly within social sciences. The speaker highlights that many professionals in the statistical field often harbor criticism toward the methodologies employed in various disciplines, which can lead to confusion about their own roles. This critique is compounded by the fact that many social scientists lack formal training in statistics, further complicating the application of statistical methods. The discussion underscores the need for clearer communication about statistical practices to mitigate these issues.
The Historical Context of Statistical Methodology
The podcast delves into the historical evolution of statistical methods in the social sciences, tracing back to influential conferences that sought to lend credibility to these fields by modeling them after hard sciences. The participants note that the agreement among early psychologists and researchers on specific measurement techniques was often fraught with misunderstandings about the implications of those measures. As new methodologies gained traction, discrepancies arose, demonstrating the complexities involved in developing a cohesive framework for statistical application in psychology and social science. This historical context reinforces the importance of understanding the foundation upon which modern statistical practices are built.
Induction and Its Philosophical Implications
Induction emerges as a central theme within the episode, particularly the philosophical problem articulated by David Hume regarding the justification of inductive reasoning. Hume famously argued that while we often predict future occurrences based on past experiences, there is no rational basis to confirm that future events will mimic past behavior. The conversation reveals the persistent dilemma within philosophy and science about how to justify our reliance on inductive reasoning despite its logical shortcomings. The discourse prompts listeners to reflect on the implications of this issue for scientific practices and everyday decision-making.
Popper's Contributions to Scientific Methodology
The role of Karl Popper and his philosophy of science, particularly his principle of falsifiability, becomes a focal point in the discussion. Popper challenged the reliance on inductive reasoning by introducing the idea that scientific theories must be subjected to rigorous testing and potential falsification. The conversation highlights how Popper's framework offers a way to discern between scientific and non-scientific claims while emphasizing the importance of critical scrutiny in scientific inquiry. This approach encourages a more dynamic understanding of knowledge, where theories evolve through rigorous debate and empirical testing.
Experiential Insight and Its Scientific Validity
The dialogue transitions to the value of experiential practices, such as meditation, and their potential insights into consciousness and reality. Certain traditions posit that deep truths about human experience may be inaccessible to scientific scrutiny, as they transcend conceptual understanding. Nonetheless, the conversation suggests that these practices can still provide valuable insights, warranting exploration within scientific frameworks. Ultimately, the crux of the debate centers on how to evaluate these experiential claims within scientific methodologies, suggesting a possible integration of various forms of understanding the world.
The Ongoing Debate on Methodological Approaches
As the episode draws to a close, there is a recognition of the complexities involved in reconciling different approaches to knowledge acquisition, whether through rigorous scientific inquiry or experiential exploration. Participants acknowledge the difficulties in drawing clear distinctions between these methodologies, often leading to philosophical tensions. The underlying theme encourages listeners to grapple with the nature of their beliefs and the rationale behind their preference for one epistemological path over another. This reflection invites a deeper consideration of how we derive meaning and understanding in our lives through various methodologies.
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.
