#75 - The Problem of Induction, Relitigated (w/ Tamler Sommers)

10/23/24 • 101 min

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.)

Check out Tamler's website, his podcast (Very Bad Wizards), or follow him on twitter (@tamler).

We discuss

What is the problem of induction?
Whether regularities really exist in nature
The difference between certainty and justification
Popper's solution to the problem of induction
If whiskey will taste like orange juice next week
What makes a good theory?
Why prediction is secondary to explanation for Popper
If science and meditiation are in conflict
The boundaries of science

References

Errata

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.
Click dem like buttons on youtube

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 [email protected]

Image credit: From this Aeon essay on Hume. Illustration by Petra Eriksson at Handsome Frank.

Special Guest: Tamler Sommers.

Support Increments

Check out Tamler's website, his podcast (Very Bad Wizards), or follow him on twitter (@tamler).

We discuss

What is the problem of induction?
Whether regularities really exist in nature
The difference between certainty and justification
Popper's solution to the problem of induction
If whiskey will taste like orange juice next week
What makes a good theory?
Why prediction is secondary to explanation for Popper
If science and meditiation are in conflict
The boundaries of science

References

Errata

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.
Click dem like buttons on youtube

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 [email protected]

Image credit: From this Aeon essay on Hume. Illustration by Petra Eriksson at Handsome Frank.

Special Guest: Tamler Sommers.

Support Increments

Previous Episode

#74 - Disagreeing about Belief, Probability, and Truth (w/ David Deutsch)

What do you do when one of your intellectual idols comes on the podcast? Bombard them with disagreements of course. We were thrilled to have David Deutsch on the podcast to discuss whether the concept of belief is a useful lens on human cognition, when probability and statistics should be deployed, and whether he disagrees with Karl Popper on abstractions, the truth, and nothing but the truth.

Follow David on Twitter (@DavidDeutschOxf) or find his website here.

We discuss

Whether belief is a fruitful lens through which to analyze ideas
Whether a non-quantitative form of belief can be defended
How does belief bottom out epistemologically?
Whether statistics and probability are useful
Where should statistics and probability be used in practice?
The Popper-Miller theorem
Statements vs propositions and their relevance for truth
Whether Popper and Deutsch disagree about truth

References

The Popper-Miller theorem. See the original paper
David's 2021 talk on the correspondence theory of truth
David's talk on physics without probability.
Hempel's paradox
The Beginning of Infinity
Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem

Socials

Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @DavidDeutschOxf
Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
Believe in us 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.
Click dem like buttons on youtube

What's the truth about your belief on the probability of useful statistics? Tell us over at [email protected].

Special Guest: David Deutsch.

Support Increments

Next Episode

#76 (Bonus) - Is P(doom) meaningful? Debating epistemology (w/ Liron Shapira)

Liron Shapira, host of [Doom Debates], invited us on to discuss Popperian versus Bayesian epistemology and whether we're worried about AI doom. As one might expect knowing us, we only got about halfway through the first subject, so get yourselves ready (presumably with many drinks) for part II in a few weeks! The era of Ben and Vaden's rowdy youtube debates has begun. Vaden is jubilant, Ben is uncomfortable, and the world has never been more annoyed by Popperians.

Follow Liron on twitter (@liron) and check out the Doom Debates youtube channel and podcast.

We discuss

Whether we're concerned about AI doom
Bayesian reasoning versus Popperian reasoning
Whether it makes sense to put numbers on all your beliefs
Solomonoff induction
Objective vs subjective Bayesianism
Prediction markets and superforecasting

References

Vaden's blog post on Cox's Theorem and Yudkowsky's claims of "Laws of Rationality": https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2021/the_credence_assumption/
Disproof of probabilistic induction (including Solomonov Induction): https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00749
EA Post Vaden Mentioned regarding predictions being uncalibrated more than 1yr out: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hqkyaHLQhzuREcXSX/data-on-forecasting-accuracy-across-different-time-horizons#Calibrations
Article by Gavin Leech and Misha Yagudin on the reliability of forecasters: https://ifp.org/can-policymakers-trust-forecasters/
Superforecaster p(doom) is ~1%: https://80000hours.org/2024/09/why-experts-and-forecasters-disagree-about-ai-risk/#:~:text=Domain%20experts%20in%20AI%20estimated,by%202100%20(around%2090%25).
The existential risk persuasion tournament https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-extinction-tournament
Some more info in Ben's article on superforecasting: https://benchugg.com/writing/superforecasting/
Slides on Content vs Probability: https://vmasrani.github.io/assets/pdf/popper_good.pdf

Socials

Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @liron
Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
Trust in the reverend Bayes 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.
Click dem like buttons on youtube

What's your credence that the second debate is as fun as the first? Tell us at [email protected]

Special Guest: Liron Shapira.

Support Increments