RSS for this playlist
|1.||Massimo Pigliucci on the Demarcation Problem|
How can you tell science from non-science? Karl Popper argued that the falsifiability of a hypothesis is the mark of science. Massimo Pigliucci is not so sure about that. | |
|2.||155: Science vs. Pseudoscience|
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/science-vs-pseudo-science. Astronomy... is science; Astrology is pseudo-science. Evolutionary Biology is science; Creationism is pseudo-science. How about cultural anthropology, abstract economics, string-theory, and evolutionary psychology – science or pseudo-science? Is pseudo-science just politically incorrect science? Or is there an objective difference? John and Ken tackle these questions with Stuart Vyse from Connecticut College, author of "Believing in Magic: ...
|3.||Rationally Speaking #10 - Nonsense on Stilts|
The focus of this episode is Massimo's new book, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. The book, broadly speaking, is about what philosopher Karl Popper famously called the demarcation problem: how do we tell the difference among science, non-science and pseudoscience? We explore the complex relationship among these, ranging from solid science like fundamental physics and evolutionary biology to definite pseudosciences like astrology and creationism. In the middle are the more interesting borde...
|4.||105: Karl Popper|
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/karl-popper. Karl... Popper is a landmark figure in the philosophy of science. His notion of "falsifiability" endures to this day and even appears in arguments about creation versus evolution. But what does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable? And where does the idea stand in contemporary philosophy of science? John and Ken test a few ideas on Popper and falsifiability with Denis Phillips from Stanford University.
|5.||Physicist Tara Shears on Falsification|
Science is based on fact, right? Cold, unchanging, unarguable facts. Perhaps not, says physicist Tara Shears. Tara is more inclined to follow the principles of the Anglo-Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper. He believed that human knowledge progresses through 'falsification'. A theory or idea shouldn't be described as scientific unless it could, in principle, be proven false. Raised in a Vienna in thrall to Marxism and Freudianism, Popper bristled against these 'sciences' which could adapt and survive to p...
Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper whose ideas about science and politics robustly challenged the accepted ideas of the day. He strongly resisted the prevailing empiricist consensus that scientists' theories could be proved true.Popper wrote: “The more we learn about the world and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance”. He believed t...
|7.||PREMIUM-Episode 82: Karl Popper on Science|
On Popper's Conjectures and Refutations (1963), the first three essays. What is science, and how is it different than pseudo-science? From philosophy? Is philosophy just pseudo-science, or proto-science, or what? Popper thinks that all legitimate...
|8.||#047 Weird Science With Karl Popper and Maryam Zaringhalam|
In this episode you’ll learn the difference between science and pseudoscience and how the philosopher Karl Popper radically changed how we view both. You’ll also hear from molecular biologist turned science advocate, Maryam Zaringhalam, about why diversity is imperative for progress, and how all of us can (and should) ward off science skeptics in order for all of us to be happier. #thehappierhour TheHappierHour.org Fac...
|9.||Imre Lakatos on Science and Pseudoscience (1973 recording)|
"Science and Pseudoscience" is Lakatos's most succinct public summary of his philosophy of science. In this talk he outlines his distinctive view of the importance of "the demarcation problem" in the philosophy and history of science, namely the normative methodological problem of distinguishing between science and pseudo-science, and of why its solution is not merely an issue of "armchair philosophy", but also one of vital social and political significance, and even of life and death itself.
|10.||Rationally Speaking #115 - Maarten Boudry and Massimo On the Difference Between Science and Pseudoscience|
In our first mini-interview episode Massimo sits down to chat with his colleague Maarten Boudry, a philosopher of science from the University of Ghent in Belgium. Maarten recently co-edited the volume on The Philosophy of Pseudoscience (Chicago Press) with Massimo, and the two chat about the difference between science and pseudoscience and why it is an important topic not just in philosophy circles, but in the broader public arena as well.
|11.||Rationally Speaking #94 - Maarten Boudry on Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem|
What's the difference between science and pseudocience -- and is it even possible to draw a clean line separating them? In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia interview philosopher Maarten Boudry from Ghent University. Tune in to hear them discuss Massimo and Maarten's new book, "Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem"... and stick around to learn how Maarten pranked theologians.
|12.||The Popperian Podcast #5 – Maarten Boudry – ‘Diagnosing Pseudoscience - Why the Demarcation Problem Matters’|
This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Maarten Boudry. They speak about how we distinguish between science and pseudoscience (otherwise known as the demarcation problem), Karl Popper’s famous...
|13.||Rationally Speaking #28 - Live! How To Tell Science From Bunk|
Massimo and Julia sit down in front of a live audience at the Jefferson Market Library in New York City for a conversation about science, non-science, and pseudo-science. Based on Massimo's book: "Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk" the topics they cover include whether the qualitative sciences are less reliable than quantitative ones, the re-running of the tape of life, and who is smarter: physicists, biologists, or psychologists? Also, why are evolutionary psychologist so fixated on sex? Th...
|14.||Rationally Speaking #9 - When Smart People Endorse Pseudoscience|
Why is it that smart people who make it a point of being skeptical and of promoting critical thinking fall for notions that are barely more defensible than astrology, or criticize well established scientific notions. Plus Massimo and Julia's picks: itisonlyatheory.blogspot.com and "The Miracle Detective"
|15.||#424 Stefaan Blancke: Science, Pseudoscience, Rationality, and Cultural Evolution|
Dr. Stefaan Blancke is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Tilburg University, Netherlands. He studies the diffusion of (pseudo)scientific beliefs from an epidemiological perspective. His research focuses on the psychological and environmental factors that shape and constrain the development and distribution of these beliefs in the history and philosophy of science, science education and the public understanding of science. He is also interested in the philosophy of cultural evolution and the role of reaso...
|16.||EV - 205 Pseudoscience Conspiracism with Melanie Trecek-King|
My guest this week is Melanie Trecek-King (@Thinkingpowers), a teacher at a community college who teaches a course on distinguishing between science, non-science, bad science, and pseudoscience. She also developed a website devoted to same issues called Thinking is Power. We discuss the challenges of pedagogy in the post truth world and how to help students learn how to think vs. what to think. Melanie's website: https://thinkingispower.com/ Convocation:... Void Original Editing by Lu Lyons, check out her a...
|17.||HoP 366 - The Men Who Saw Tomorrow - Renaissance Magic and Astrology|
Ficino, Pico, Cardano, and other Renaissance thinkers debate whether astrology and magic are legitimate sciences with a foundation in natural philosophy.
|18.||#457 Michael Strevens - The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science|
Dr. Michael Strevens is Professor of Philosophy at New York University. He works on the philosophy of science, where his interests include explanation, complex systems, probability, confirmation, the social structure of science, and causation; the psychology of concepts; and the philosophical applications of cognitive science. He is the author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science. | In this episode, we focus on The Knowledge Machine. We first talk about science before the scien...
|19.||95 | Liam Kofi Bright on Knowledge, Truth, and Science|
I talk with philosopher Liam Kofi Bright about the nature of truth, how science gets there, and how it could do so more effectively.
|20.||#475 Lee McIntyre - The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience|
Dr. Lee McIntyre is a Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University. He is interested in comparative methodology across the natural and social sciences. He is the author of books like Post-Truth, and The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience. | In this episode, we focus on The Scientific Attitude. We start by discussing the demarcation problem and the scientific method, and then go over topics like the scientific attitude; ske...
|21.||The Limits of Science|
What is the scientific method? What’s special about it? What are the limits of its application? How does science compare with other ways of knowing and when should we use those other ways in preference to science – if ever? Helping Grant Bartley from Philosophy Now answer these questions will be Ken Gemes from Birkbeck, University of London, Gary Retallick from the Workers’ Educational Association, and Dean Peters from the London School of Economics. First broadcast on 6 March 2012 on Resonance FM.
|22.||The Popperian Podcast #2 – Matteo Collodel – ‘Karl Popper vs. Paul Feyerabend’|
This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Matteo Collodel. They speak about the role that Karl Popper and critical rationalism played in the intellectual development of Paul Feyerabend, the nature of...
|23.||Episode 41: Michael Strevens|
On Episode 41, Nick chats with Michael Strevens, professor in the Philosophy Department at New York University, about growing up in Auckland, New Zealand during the 1970s, how his mutual interests in computer science and how thought works lead to undergraduate work in formal logic and graduate study at Rutgers, how he transitioned after being denied tenure at Stanford, philosophy of probabilities in statistical mechanics, the social structure of science, and his new book, "Thinking Off Your Feet: How Empiri...
|24.||The Popperian Podcast #3 – Nicholas Maxwell – ‘More Popperian than Popper’|
This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Nicholas Maxwell. They speak about Karl Popper’s scientific method, what Maxwell’s disagreements with Popper are, the difference between bare and dressed...
|25.||Episode 65 - Remco Heesen|
On Episode 65, Nick chats with Dr. Remco Heesen, faculty member in philosophy at the University of Western Australia, about his research concerning what happens after scientific evidence is collected, such as the scientist’s choice of when to share her findings, and how peer review may affect what gets reported.
|26.||The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn|
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited books of all time. Thomas Kuhn insightfully challenged our assumptions about science, but also ignited a cultural movement energized around the misinterpretation that scientific progress was an illusion. This idea became a pillar of postmodernism, and no one was more frustrated by the folly of its development than Thomas Kuhn himself. You can support Context and access bonus content on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/context.
|27.||The Ashes of Truth|
Documentary film and science do not appear to have much in common, except that, philosophically, they have everything in common. Two men met in 1971 and had a disagreement, which turned into an assault, and then 45 years of disdain. One of them was the most cited philosopher of the 20th century, the other is one of the most influential documentary filmmakers of his generation. It was a disagreement that ran deep, right down to the nature of truth, history, reference, and the objects and limits of human inqu...
|28.||Episode 86: Thomas Kuhn on Scientific Progress|
On The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, published mostly in 1962.
|29.||The Popperian Podcast #6 – Steve Fuller – ‘Karl Popper vs. Thomas Kuhn’|
This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Steve Fuller. They speak about Steve’s book Kuhn Vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science, how Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn each regarded the...
|30.||Episode 217: Dropping Paradigms (Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions")|
David and Tamler hit the books and cram for their beloved Patreon listener-selected episode – this time on Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” David thinks Kuhn is a great sociologist of science but recoils at the relativistic tenor of the final chapters. Tamler loves anything that makes David recoil. Plus, should we give more weight to the advice of people on their deathbed? Or should we nod politely and get back to working for that promotion…
|31.||Menachem Fisch, “Creatively Undecided: Toward a History and Philosophy of Scientific Agency” (U Chicago Press, 2017 )|
Thomas Kuhn upset both scientists and philosophers of science when he argued that transitions from one scientific framework (or “paradigm”) to another were irrational: the change was like a religious conversion experience rather than a reasoned shift from one theory to another based on the best evidence. But even if one disagrees with Kuhn, how can this change be shown to be rational? More generally, how can transitions from one set of normative standards to another be rational, given that there is no neutr...
|32.||Rationally Speaking #32 - Value-free Science?|
We all think that science is about objectivity and “just the facts, ma’am.” Not so fast, philosophers, historians and sociologists of science have been arguing now for a number of decades. To begin with, there are values embedded in the practice of science itself: testability, accuracy, generality, simplicity, and the like. Then there are the many moral dimensions of science practice, both in terms of ethical issues internal to science (fraud) and of the much broader ones affecting society at large (societa...
|33.||Jan De Winter, “Interests and Epistemic Integrity in Science” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017)|
In the 1960’s Thomas Kuhn argued, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that scientists’ choices between competing theories could not be determined by the empirical evidence. Ever since, philosophers of science have debated the role of non-epistemic values and interests in science, generally agreeing that such influences are undesirable even if they are inevitable. In Interests and Epistemic Integrity in Science (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017), Jan de Winter argues that the direct influence of non-episte...
|34.||Episode 64 - Matt Brown|
On Episode 64, Nick chats with Dr. Matt Brown, Associate Professor of Philosophy and History of Ideas, and Director of the Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology at University of Texas at Dallas, about the ways in which science is a value-laden enterprise, the impact of the value-ladenness of science on our conception of the role of science in policy, and the parallels between scientific and technological, ethical and political inquiries.
|35.||Truth and Scientific Progress | Nancy Cartwright|
How important is trust and authority to the healthy production of modern science? At a time of uncertainty and doubt, many of us look to science to provide the answers. But does science deserve the authority we give it? And does our trust help, or are ch
|36.||27/4/2020: Nancy Cartwright asks Why Trust Science?|
Nancy Cartwright is a methodologist and philosopher of the natural and human sciences, with special focus on causation, evidence and modelling. Her recent work has been on scientific evidence, objectivity and how to put theory to work. She is a Professor of Philosophy at Durham University and the University of California San Diego, having worked previously at Stanford University and the London School of Economics. Professor Cartwright is a former MacArthur fellow, a fellow of the British Academy and the Aca...
|37.||#208 David Wootton: History of Science, Philosophy, Politics, And Capitalism|
Dr. David Wootton is Anniversary Professor of History at the University of York. He works on the intellectual and cultural history of the English-speaking countries, Italy, and France, from the 17th to the 19th centuries. His most recent book is Power, Pleasure, and Profit published by Harvard University Press, and he’s also the author of The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution. He has given the Carlyle and Besterman Lectures at Oxford, the Raleigh Lecture at the British Academy...
|38.||J.D. Trout, “Wondrous Truths: The Improbable Triumph of Modern Science” (Oxford UP, 2016)|
The social practice we call science has had spectacular success in explaining the natural world since the 17th century. While advanced mathematics and other precursors of modern science were not unique to Europe, it was there that Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and others came up with theories that got modern physics and chemistry off the ground. In his latest book, Wondrous Truths: The Improbable Triumph of Modern Science (Oxford University Press, 2016), J.D. Trout mounts a spirited defense of the claim that ...
Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Materialism in Philosophy – the idea that matter and the interactions between matter account for all that exists and all that happens. We trace the descent of materialism from the ancient Greek philosophers Democritus and Epicurus, to its powerful and controversial flowering in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as an attack on religion. It’s provocative stuff even today and certainly was in 1770 when Baron D’Holbach published his book The System of Nature. He wrote: "If we go...
|40.||HoP 009 - The Final Cut - Democritus And Leuccipus|
Ancient atomism as a response to Parmenides |
|41.||HoP 058 - Reaping the Harvest - Lucretius|
In “On the Nature of Things” Lucretius sets Epicureanism into Latin poetic verse |
|42.||HoP 334 - Chance Encounters - Reviving Hellenistic philosophy|
The rediscovery of Epicurus, Lucretius, and Sextus Empiricus spreads challenging ideas about chance, atomism, and skepticism.
|43.||Ep. 226: Francis Bacon Invents Science (Part One)|
On Sir Francis Bacon's New Organon (1620). Bacon claims to have developed a new toolset that will open up nature to inquiry in a way that wasn't possible for ancient and modern natural philosophy. Mark, Wes, and Dylan consider how much what Bacon...
|44.||Ep. 226: Francis Bacon Invents Science (Part Two)|
Continuing on Sir Francis Bacon's New Organon (1620). We cover more of Bacon's "idols" and how Bacon divides religion from science (and what this means politically). We then move on to book 2, including Bacon's novel update of the term "form," and...
Patricia Fara, Stephen Pumfrey and Rhodri Lewis join Melvyn Bragg to discuss the Jacobean lawyer, political fixer and alleged founder of modern science Francis Bacon.In the introduction to Thomas Spratt's History of the Royal Society, there is a poem about man called Francis Bacon which declares 'Bacon, like Moses, led us forth at last, The barren wilderness he past, Did on the very border stand Of the blest promis'd land, And from the mountain's top of his exalted wit, Saw it himself, and shew'd us it'.Fra...
|46.||Episode #025 ... A Scientific Method For Your Life!|
On this episode of the podcast, we learn about Francis Bacon, a 16th century English philosopher. We first discuss what it meant to pursue knowledge during the time Francis Bacon lived and why he thought that scientific advancement should be...
|47.||HoP 359 - There and Back Again - Zabarella on Scientific Method|
Jacopo Zabarella outlines the correct method for pursuing, and then presenting, scientific discoveries.
Melvyn Bragg discusses Logical Positivism, the eye-wateringly radical early 20th century philosophical movement. The Logical Positivists argued that much previous philosophy was built on very shaky foundations, and they wanted to go right back to the drawing board. They insisted that philosophy - and science - had to be much more rigorous before it started making grand claims about the world. The movement began with the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophically-trained scientists and scientifically-traine...
|49.||David Papineau on Scientific Realism|
Scientists talk about sub-atomic particles which are invisible to the eye. Do such particles really exist? Or are they simply convenient fictions that, for the moment at least, explain the observable phenomena? David Papineau discusses and defends scientific realism in this episode of Philosophy Bites.
|50.||EV - 116 Zhuangzi and Scientific Realism with Aaron Novick|
My guest this week is Aaron Novick (@AmneMachin), assistant professor of philosophy at Purdue University. We combine together two often requested topics that might not seem related at first glance. We look first at the work of Zhuangzi, a 4th century Chinese philosopher, and then consider how it informs our modern discussion of the nature of science. Aaron's Website: https://www.aaronnovick.com/ Invocation:... Zhuangzi's Butterfly Dream Editing by Brian Ziegenhagen, check out his pod: http://youarehere.l...
|51.||33 | James Ladyman on Reality, Metaphysics, and Complexity|
Reality is a tricky thing. Is love real? What about the number 5? This is clearly a job for a philosopher, and James Ladyman is one of the world’s acknowledged experts. He and his collaborators have been championing a view known as “structural realism,” in which real things are those that reflect true, useful patterns in the underlying reality. We talk about that, but also about a couple of other subjects in the broad area of philosophy of science: the history and current status of materialism/physicalism, ...
|52.||Samuel Schindler, "Theoretical Virtues in Science: Discovering Reality Through Theory" (Cambridge UP, 2018)|
A fundamental problem in science, and in philosophy of science, is that of theory choice. Scientists propose theories to explain data, but when two scientific theories can both explain the same data, what criteria do scientists use to choose between them? And given that even very popular scientific theories can turn out to be wrong, how are the criteria for theory choice related to truth? Do scientists even aim at true theories, as realists hold, or, as anti-realists hold, do they just care that the theorie...
|53.||Truth, Science and the Universe | Peter Atkins, Sophia Roosth, Tim Lewens|
Where once we made sense of the world using the idea of God, most of us now believe in a more scientific story, of an unfolding universe and evolution. Yet scientists increasingly see their theories as useful models rather than ultimate accounts. Is scie
|54.||Margaret Morrison, “Reconstructing Reality: Models, Mathematics, and Simulations” (Oxford UP, 2015)|
Almost 400 years ago, Galileo wrote that the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics. Today, mathematics is integral to physics and chemistry, and is becoming so in biology, economics, and other sciences, although amid great controversy. The messy reality of biological creatures and their social relations cannot be captured in mathematical models or computer simulations, it is argued. But what is the relation between mathematics and physical reality? Do highly abstract mathematical formalis...
|55.||Eric Winsberg, “Philosophy and Climate Science” (Cambridge UP, 2018)|
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that there is a warming trend in the global climate that is attributable to human activity, with an expected increase in global temperature (given current trends) of 1.5- 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-7.2 degrees Fahrenheit). But how do climate scientists reach these conclusions? In Philosophy and Climate Science (Cambridge University Press, 2018), Eric Winsberg presents the elements of climate science in an accessible but rigorous framework that empha...
|56.||150 | Simon DeDeo on How Explanations Work and Why They Sometimes Fail|
I talk with Simon DeDeo about the competing values of different kinds of explanations, from science to conspiracy theories.
|57.||462: Does Science Over-reach?|
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/does-science-over-reach. We've... all heard the phrase, "You can't argue with science." Appealing to scientific fact as a way to settle a question makes sense given the amazing advancements science has brought us in understanding how the world works. But should we take the accomplishments of science as evidence for scientism—the view that science is the best and only way to acquire genuine knowledge? Does faith in science require that we disregard all non-scient...
|58.||Episode 11: Scientism|
Good news everybody! Science-obsessed philosophers Richard Brown and Pete Mandik duke it out over which one is the most egregious purveyor of scientism, the view that anything worth knowing is worth knowing scientifically. Or is scientism just empiricism? And what the hack is that, anyway? Is it simply an affirmation of the superiority of sensory knowledge? Or is it at bottom a denial of necessary truths? Or is being a scientismologist just what happens when you label yourself as such to achieve greater soc...
|59.||Everything We Cannot Know | Henry Gee|
There are thousands of big ideas to discover at IAI.tv – videos, articles, and course waiting for you to explore. Find out more: https://iai.tv/podcast-offers How much can we possibly know about the universe? And where do the boundaries of scientifi
|60.||Kareem Khalifa, "Understanding, Explanation and Scientific Knowledge" (Cambridge UP, 2017)|
What is the relation between understanding and knowledge in science? Can we understand a scientific theory if it is false? Do we understand a scientific proposition we can’t elaborate or do anything with? In Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge (Cambridge University Press 2017), Kareem Khalifa argues for a revised version of a traditional view whereby understanding is a function of knowledge of an explanation. In his updated version, understanding admits of degrees, starting from minimal und...
|61.||Missing Evidence | Tara Shears, Rupert Sheldrake, Massimo Pigliucci|
We think science is based on facts and evidence. But from gravity to dark matter, string theory to parallel universes, its theories are curiously bereft of hard evidence. Is evidence less important than we think and conjecture alone capable of leading to
|62.||Liam Bright on Verificationism|
Verificationists believe that every meaningful statement is either true by definition or else empirically verifiable (or falsifiable). Anything which fails to pass this two-pronged test for meaningfulness is neither true nor false, but literally meaningless. Liam Bright discusses Verificationism and its links with the Vienna Circle with David Edmonds in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.
|63.||The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes No Assertion|
A talk given by Liam Kofi Bright (LSE) at the Moral Sciences Club on 5th March 2019.
|64.||Out of the Vat #8 – David Papineau|
David Papineau is Professor of Philosophy of Science at King's College London. In this episode, David discusses causes and correlations, worrying about branching universes, and the problem with... | | Philosophers’ work and philosophers’ lives, both inside and outside of philosophy. Brought to you by the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, LSE, and the Forum for Philosophy.
|65.||Susan Haack, “Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law” (Cambridge UP, 2014)|
Our legal systems are rooted in rules and procedures concerning the burden of proof, the weighing of evidence, the reliability and admissibility of testimony, among much else. It seems obvious, then, that the law is in large part an epistemological enterprise. And yet when one looks at the ways in which judges have wielded epistemological concepts, there is plenty of room for concern. In Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014), Susan Haack brings her skill...
|66.||Science, misinformation and dissent|
Science welcomes dissent. Scientific progress depends on challenging and dismantling theories as well as verifying them. But how should we deal with misinformation about science, and its non-epistemic effects - the ways in which misinformation can erode such liberal democratic values as personal autonomy?
|67.||Episode 47 - Angela Potochnik|
On Episode 47, Nick chats with Angela Potochnik, Associate Professor of Philosophy and the Director of the Center for Public Engagement with Science at the University of Cincinnati, about her time studying in Vienna and how she came to love the history of logical empiricism, her co-written work, “Recipes for Science” on scientific methods and reasoning from a philosophical perspective, and her new book, “Idealization and the Aims of Science” on the centrality of idealization in science.Timestamps:...