ToKCast

In this I take things a little slower - but it's well worth the journey through Plato - even Plato's uncle "Critias" makes an appearance - and the great defender of liberalism John Milton who was one of the first to argue against censorship. Milton was one of the first to argue "truth will out" in a battle against falsehood. Popper disagreed - but agreed with Milton that censorship was never good. So what was the disagreement and how was it resolved? We learn Plato endorsed a "blood and soil" fallacy that tyrants (and not so tyrants) have used to exploit racial divisions for political reasons through to today. Popper criticises not merely the low-hanging fruit of racism but also of the origins of liberal ideas and how they can also lead to tyranny if not looked at under the brighter light of fallibilism - which as I have argued before is like an acid that is able to dissolve through dogmatism and relativism alike. Popper uses the idea that truth is NOT manifest to explain how we can better build a tolerant society by just appreciating that we can all be in error.

Part 1 of a new short series where I am commenting on Karl Popper's lecture "On the sources of knowledge and of ignorance". This paper sets the scene for the link between objective knowledge and fallibilism - refuting, as it does so, the empiricism of the classic British tradition and the rationalism of the Continental Tradition. I make the case at one point that most modern intellectuals (I mention the Americans in particular - perhaps unfairly) blend both classic philosophies into an epistemology of "certainly true knowledge" which is evidence based ("empirical") and inerrant (because it is "rational"). In all cases these are "the truth is manifest" crowd and that can lead to authoritarianism. The Popperian tradition is to take both the virtues of empiricism and rationalism - and thus by the light of both evidence and reason come to objective knowledge: knowledge that solves a problem but could possibly be wrong.

This is a preview of a series where I will be commenting on Popper's "On the sources of knowledge and of ignorance". In this part I remark on my own experience encountering Popper as a university student who took some philosophy subjects - how Popper was presented. How he compares to his contemporaries - like Wittgenstein. Popper's style of writing and as I keep emphasising on ToKCast - Popper's tendency to go to science - to ideas there in science and how it works set him apart. He does not invent "examples in the abstract" - thought experiments are barely a thing for Popper (while they are almost everything for Wittgenstein). Popper speaks about concretes - what was actually done, why and how. So I do this because I need a break from critiquing all those other philosophers and philosophies I have been - the contrast is stark between Popper and almost all others. Wittgenstein may be "the philosopher's philosopher". He can keep the title. Popper is "the anti-philosopher philosopher" - and a hero for being so.

This is part 2 of a deep dive into the role of induction in objectivist epistemology as interpreted by an objectivist scholar of Ayn Rand. Thomas Miovas Jr operates a website about Objectivism here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com. The relevant paper can be found here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/induction-in-philosophy-and-the-special-sciences.html?fbclid=IwAR2cNLVGxyguM5R2TXaYe3OVclhw34lAdIKN0Mp13zTLK-J8dPMmnfNVlOs It is the above paper I am analysing. In this episode I discuss more about induction as it is used by Thomas and his invocation of some science - physics in particular and the broader objectivist usage of the term "induction" and Thomas Miovas attempts to salvage the word despite noticing issues with it as it is typically formulated. This leads to a comparison between Rand's style of philosophy - especially epistemology and it's tendency towards abstractions and Karl Popper's far more practical and concrete problem centred approach. Herein I look at how theory-laden any observation is - like simply observing how the sky can be blue. What does "The sky is blue" mean? Is there a sky? Is the air blue? What is scattering? Popper's vision of how knowledge is constructed accounts for this complex notion of our minds coming to solve such problems: Rand's on the other hand is left grappling with why we do not "observe the facts of reality" as she, and other objectivists such as Thomas Miovas, claim we can.

This is an excerpt from a longer episode yet to come. After my analysis of Objectivist Epistemology (so far) I was implored to read a book by objectivist "David Harriman" titled "The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics" (2010). It is available here: https://www.amazon.com/Logical-Leap-Induction-Physics/dp/0451230051/ref=sr_1_1?crid=B5MBF53NNWR0&keywords=The+Logical+Leap&qid=1664073086&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjU0IiwicXNhIjoiMS41NCIsInFzcCI6IjEuNDYifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=the+logical+leap%2Caps%2C334&sr=8-1  This is my analysis of a couple of important sections of the book.

Stop Presses. We interrupt regular programming to discuss the announcement of David Deutsch's share in the award of a Breakthrough Prize - one of the highest honours in science. ToKCast does not, as a rule, cover "news" - but this one exception allows me to turn something "timely" into something "timeless". There is a webpage for this episode here: https://www.bretthall.org/breakthrough.html

This is in response to a paper by Objectivist scholar Thomas Miovas Jr who operates a website about Objectivism here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com. The relevant paper can be found here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/induction-in-philosophy-and-the-special-sciences.html?fbclid=IwAR2cNLVGxyguM5R2TXaYe3OVclhw34lAdIKN0Mp13zTLK-J8dPMmnfNVlOs In this episode I discuss induction broadly speaking, the objectivist usage of the term and Thomas Miovas attempts to salvage the word despite noticing issues with it as it is typically formulated. This leads to a comparison between Rand's style of philosophy - especially epistemology and it's tendency towards abstractions and Karl Popper's far more practical and concrete problem centred approach. Herein I look at how theory-laden any observation is - like simply observing how the sky can be blue. What does "The sky is blue" mean? Is there a sky? Is the air blue? What is scattering? Popper's vision of how knowledge is constructed accounts for this complex notion of our minds coming to solve such problems: Rand's on the other hand is left grappling with why we do not "observe the facts of reality" as she, and other objectivists such as Thomas Miovas, claim we can.

Ayn Rand claims we are "observing the facts of reality" when forming concepts. Here I explain why that is wrong and how facts are things we conclude *only at the end* of a long chain of interpretation. This is an excerpt from an episode to be released after this one, also on "objectivist epistemology", and in addition to the previous episode released about "An introduction to objectivist epistemology" by Ayn Rand.

Here I read from Ayn Rand's work "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and reflect upon it by comparing it to actual epistemology (how knowledge is created). We explain the misconceptions in the view that knowledge is all about the goings on in minds and how Rand's epistemology is root-and-branch subjectivist. Ayn Rand is an excellent defender of free trade and capitalism, the inherent value of people: her ideas are pro-human and broadly optimistic. However the epistemology is fundamentally flawed containing pure speculation about how people learn (so-called "concept formation") and disconnected from problems in (for example) science and where knowledge is being constructed. Her examples are highly abstract rather than being based in the concrete reality of the history of ideas and for this reasons she reaches the same conclusions as almost all other philosophers on this topic. Namely that knowledge is derived from reality through our senses (empiricism) and is induced by noticing similarities between objects. This is not explanatory, it is not insightful and it is demonstrably false - as I explain.

The final episode of readings from "The Science of Can and Can't" by Chiara Marietta. This serves as something of a summary chapter with pointers about the future of Constructor Theory.