The Theory of Anything

Bruce returns to AGI through the lens of a critical rationalist debate about whether or not AGI is theoretically possible. Can human intelligence be replicated? Is this a physics question or a biology question? Is our universe and our minds like a compact disc or like a vinyl record? But really, Bruce is just using the AGI debate to explore an epistemological idea: that the state of a critical dis...

Is so-called "self-deception" a real thing? How can one at once be aware that something is true and yet also be unaware of it? Is it even a coherent concept? Doesn't deception require at least two entities—the deceived and the deceiver? Can "self-deception" be explained as something much simpler, namely deception? Bruce summarizes his views on self-deception, moralizing, an...

This week we are joined for the 4th time by physicist Sam Kuypers. From his Conjecture Institute profile: “Quantum physicist, interested in foundational questions. In his research, published in reputable scientific journals, he explores the quantum theory of time, the many-worlds interpretation, and locality.”We discuss: Is probability theory true? Is it useful? What is the connection between prob...

Ad hoc saves and immunizing stratagems are phrases Karl Popper used to describe moves humans make when we try to protect our theories from refutation. We all do this every day in one way or another. But immunizing stratagems hurts theories in that this move makes our ideas overall less convincing to other people. Marxism and psychoanalysis are the classic areas where Popper saw true believers bend...

This week we talk about doomers, specifically AI doomers. Why has it become such a popular notion, especially amongst those who consider themselves the most rational kinds of people, that this kind of apocalypse, amongst others, is imminent? What assumptions are behind this pessimistic assertion? This episode was actually entirely unplanned. We started recording another episode and got off on to t...

Bruce has made a controversial claim on this show: today's "CritRats" (Critical Rationalists on X) have drifted from what Popper intended. And surprisingly, some of the drift traces back to David Deutsch's reinterpretation of Popper in an attempt to solve real problems with Popper's original epistemology. In this episode, Bruce unpacks exactly how — tracing the key points whe...

This week we were honored to interview Ray Scott Percival, a significant but also woefully under-appreciated figure in critical rationalism. Percival has been active in critical rationalist forums, conferences, and academic journals since the 90s and before. He has written for Quillette. He was the editor of a book of critical responses to Steven Pinker. He created an excellent documentary film ca...

This week we had the pleasure of interviewing Michael Golding, M.D, who is a psychiatric physician. He is also heavily influenced by the philosophical ideas of David Deutsch and Karl Popper. At one point he calls himself a proponent of homeschooling and Taking Children Seriously. Together we wrestle with what critical rationalism and the universal explainer hypothesis suggests about mental illness...

Bruce examines how effectively critical rationalism can ground the non-aggression principle (NAP)—the libertarian idea that, in some formulation, it is morally wrong to initiate violence. But does it really make sense to interpret all areas of law through this single principle? Might it be better replaced by an alternative, such as a principle of least coercion? And what, from a critical rationali...

In this video podcast, Bruce makes his boldest statement yet about probability. He dives into David Deutsch’s lecture “Physics Without Probability” —as well as our Episode 100 interview with Deutsch—to unpack the core argument. Bruce carefully works through the mathematical details of Deutsch’s claim that probability is merely a “flat-earth approximation.” As best as he can make sense of it, howev...

This week Bruce takes a deep dive into the epistemological ideas in Jonathan Rauch’s book The Constitution of Knowledge . Rauch is a fan of Karl Popper and a former guest on this show. He makes the case that the creation of objective knowledge relies on institutions and norms as much individuals. All claims must be open to criticism and not based on authority. This applies not just to science but...

This week, Bruce looks at how much critical rationalists do—and do not—subject their proposed best theories to critical testing. Bruce wrestles with how we apply the tools of critical rationalism—fallibilism, argument/debate, the demarcation criteria, falsification, and so on—to our real world ideas about economics, politics, and other issues. To do this, Bruce asks these question: Isn't econo...

In our shortest episode ever, Bruce continues his exploration of the concept of concepts by looking at "knowledge" as a concept rather than a theory. And of course along the the way he pushes back again several critical rationalist dogmas. ⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

Bruce looks at what makes sense—and doesn’t—about popular theories on knowledge promoted by CritRats (critical rationalists on X). He looks at how much these theories align, and don’t align, with what David Deutsch has actually said about knowledge. ⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

A curious Twitter exchange with David Deutsch prompts Bruce to explore what Deutsch and other critical rationalists mean when they assert that randomness doesn’t truly exist. ⁠Support us on Patreon⁠⁠

In this episode, Bruce explores his extended conversation with philosopher and inductivist Kieren, focusing on Kieren’s claim that Popper’s Critical Rationalism ultimately depends on induction. Bruce then makes a striking counter-claim: that Kieren’s entire argument amounts to stripping all substantive content from his “theory” of induction and turning it into an unfalsifiable concept—essentially...

Here Bruce starts with Popper’s assertion that theories are 100x more valuable than concepts and compares it to Douglas Hofstadter’s ideas on creativity and consciousness. But if concepts matter so little, where do conjectures originate? Popper offers little on this point, yet Hofstadter’s view of the human mind as a system of self-referential feedback loops—able to bridge gaps that formal logic c...

What is a concept? What is a theory? And was Karl Popper right when he said theories are “100 times more valuable” than concepts? But where do conjectures come from? We go over Popper's own writing about concepts and his explanation for why he feels they are less valuable than theories. Does this prove Bruce wrong from back in episode 112 where he claimed concepts are more valuable than words?...

This week we welcome back Micah Redding of the Christian Transhumanist podcast. We had a joyful conversation touching on religion, science fiction, and teleology. We look at the ways science fiction and fantasy triggers our moral intuitions regarding what kind of universe we live in with respect to meaning. Do we live in an inherently meaningful universe (teleology); a meaning neutral universe in...

aka "The Popper vs Campbell Beatdown!" At long last! The showdown you've all been waiting for! These two giants of epistemology meet in the ring and fight it out for dominance! Bruce continues his exploration of evolutionary epistemology, or the idea that all knowledge creation in nature is analogous to natural selection. Specifically, Bruce discusses how Karl Popper’s critical rationalism is—and...

Bruce compares Donald Campbell’s evolutionary epistemology and David Deutsch’s ideas on infinite knowledge growth. What is knowledge growth? Is it a rare thing limited to only biological evolution and human ideas, as Deutsch seems to argue? (Does he argue that?) Or is it a ubiquitous process that happens all around us at all levels of nature as Campbell argues? Is knowledge created in human minds...

In this shorter episode Bruce takes a deep dive into logical fallacies. How useful are logical fallacies? Does pointing out a logical fallacy help correct errors? Does doing so make us more rational? Can we become more logical by avoiding ad hominem attacks, not straw-manning or appealing to authority, and avoiding slippery slopes? And is there a difference between a logical fallacy and a rational...

In our previous episode covering Strevens' critique of Popper, we briefly touched on why Bruce believes it it a mistake for CritRats to say they don't believe in beliefs. This time Bruce takes a deep dive into beliefs -- and walks back his previous statement a bit. Do humans need beliefs? Are beliefs dangerous? What is the critical rationalist position on beliefs? What did Popper say? And...

This week Bruce puts Popper on trial. Specifically, through the lens of Michael Stevens’s book, The Knowledge Machine , which argues that science works because it follows the “iron law of explanation” where scientists must (at least in public) put aside philosophy, politics, and theology and only follow empirical evidence. Bruce asks, how compatible is this view with the epistemology of Karl Poppe...

This week we interview Logan Chipkin. Logan is a writer and author of several books. Recently he co-authored and published The Sovereign Child about raising children without coercion, and The Lords of the Cosmos , which tells the story of progress through the lens of good philosophy. Logan is also the president of Conjecture Institute , which is a brand new organization dedicated to promoting the...