It's rather ironic that discussions on Popperian epistemology often center too much on agreement. We need more controversy like this to move the discussion forward.
Key extracts from the podcast: 1⃣ Belief Can Mislead Our Understanding of Thought David Deutsch argues that the concept of "belief" often confuses how we understand human thought processes. Instead of relying on beliefs, we should focus on developing explanations and theories. 2⃣ Explanations Are More Important Than Strength of Belief Our decisions should be based on the best explanations we have, not on how strongly we believe something. Understanding "why" is more valuable than the degree of confidence in a belief. 3⃣ The Limits of Probability and Statistics in Decision-Making While useful in some contexts, probability and statistics can be misleading. They shouldn't replace deep understanding and solid explanations when making decisions. 4⃣ Probability Doesn't Capture Real-World Complexity Relying solely on probability ignores the complexities of reality. Human creativity and unforeseen events can disrupt statistical predictions, making them ineffective. 5⃣ Science Pursues Truth by Continuously Refining Explanations Even though we can't attain absolute certainty, science meaningfully pursues truth by constantly improving our explanations and eliminating errors. 6⃣ Understanding the Difference Between Propositions and Statements Propositions: Abstract, precise concepts that can be definitively true or false. Statements: Our expressions, which might be imprecise or ambiguous. We strive to make our statements closely approximate true propositions. 7⃣ The Importance of the Correspondence Theory of Truth A statement is considered true if it corresponds to the facts. Our goal is to enhance how well our statements align with reality, despite inherent imperfections. 8⃣ Explanations Should Take Priority Over Data Trends Understanding underlying causes is crucial. Focusing on "why" helps us navigate an unpredictable world better than relying solely on patterns or statistical data. 9⃣ Human Creativity Makes Behavior Unpredictable People can act in novel, unforeseen ways. This unpredictability means we must seek explanations for behavior rather than depending on statistical trends. 🔟 Key Takeaway: Emphasize Developing Explanations Over Holding Beliefs To truly understand and engage with the world, we must prioritize developing and refining our explanations over merely holding beliefs or relying on probabilities.
32:46 relatable example 36:35 “you can control for the factors that you have a theory could affect the outcome” 59:57 on propositions and statements 1:04 on the connection between words and the physical world
Nice! Listening to a conversation directed to abstract, but not obscure or pretentious ideas, carried out in very clear and precise terms , where all parties are interested in genuinely learning from each other mutually, without any intrusion of 1up Smith ship or ego is like listening to Angels sing!
I don't believe in anything... reality just is, watched this to understand what DD who is known as a physict philosopher,( similar to Sean Carroll), explain the concept of belief. The medical system anologys was coincidental.
@@johncarter1150 Belief is an elusive term. One needs to have a grounding for evidence and the best I can come up with is empirical consensus. There are some drawbacks but it beats all other forms in the end. But my point was the pragmatic solution to a problem with collected data is a reasonable way of handling a situation whereas DD doesn't seem to accept that concept. It might not always be the optimal path but it's reasonable. Applicable to stocks, fantasy drafts and peak summer season at the outdoor pool. Markets might crash, players might get injured and the rain might spoil the afternoon by the pool but it's still a reasonable way of thinking about it. Disclaimer: Don't gamble with money or time you cannot afford to lose!
Deutsch: The probability of us hitting on an actual truth is Zero. We can't achieve infinite precision, so our statements are always ambiguous to some extend.
There is an interesting fact regarding possible undecidability of Goldbach conjecture: if it would happen that Goldbach would be undecidable since it is obviously the so called Pi_1 statement, namely statement of the form: ,,for every element from (fixed) countable set some property (which is decidable by an algorithm in finite time) is true'' then it would follow that it willbe _true_. In other words, if Goldbach would turn out to be false it would be _provably false_: therefore undecidability of Goldbach conjecture implies that it is true. The same is true for Riemann Hypothesis but in this case the argument is a little bit more involved (I mean the arfgument to see that RH is in fact a Pi_1 statement-but one can do that). Of course, do not have an impression that is has to do with the fact that both problems: Golbach conjecture and RH are famous: it just happened that they turned out to be Pi_1 sentences.
1:15:36 The point is that the moment the axioms were laid down, was the moment we invented all prime numbers. The axiom definition is the moment of creation of all that follows from them.
Honestly this is the only interview where I’m asking myself wtf is David talking about? The whole hospital example sounds like he’s saying we shouldn’t use probabilities and statistics because they could be wrong. Well of course they could be wrong, we never have perfect information.
I love David, but he needs to take a neuroscience course on how the brain deceives the Self. David has a belief in the Many World Theory . The majority of David's peer group sees this as a part of David's belief system. Best wishes
I don't understand what he is trying to say at all honestly. Given theories are just models you must have a reasonable credence for its predictive applicability/accuracy to a given situation or you shouldn't use it. Reality may be deterministic, understanding it is inherently stochastic. We have no direct access to reality, solipsism is not logically refutable, fundamental ontologies are theoretical. Right now he is talking about regarding a proposition being "good enough", what is an evaluation of a theory as being good enough other than a credence? I can see how he could have a point when it comes to abstractions but he's a physicist, unless he is arguing this in context of a true theory of everything that is all encompassing he seems necessarily wrong. Statistical significance is a vital component of the scientific method, I don't see how it could be functionally replaced.
If I understand his view correctly, a theory can only rise up as good because of elimination of its rival theories (due to logical holes, refutation by empirical evidence, etc depending on the field). Conforming evidence cannot be a sign of a good theory, only disproving evidence against its rivals. All this I read up about in his book The Fabric of Reality, chapter 7 "A conversation about justification".
@@KreatorX1029 That still makes no sense, it's always impossible to account for every possibility in a real world situation. It is *necessarily* the case that your best predictive theory is a guess unless you are Laplace's demon. If you have no measure by which to judge the accuracy of your theories/guesses you would constantly be taking crazy risks, because there's plenty of situations in which your best guess is still a bad one. I am relatively uneducated on economics, but I'm very well versed in physics. I have things I believe to be true that fall into both categories but I am MUCH more confident in my understanding electromagnetism than I am on the consequences of international trade agreements. The degree to which I'm confident of my understanding of any fact or situation is something I regularly actively estimate and is crucial to my decision making processes. As for reading his book, I'll pass... I've watched this video in which he is supposed to be making his case for these ideas and he's just obviously wrong as far as I can tell. The pushback offered here is meek at best, the need to gauge confidence in knowledge is simply essential to functioning in the world. I *believe* that to be case with a level of confidence that's directly informing my decision that I am not interested in seeking out and reading his book claiming I'm wrong about how I decided I'm not interested.
@@jyjjy7you decided not to read his book is exactly the example of bad explanation. Idead can go from 99.999% confidence to 0 at the exact moment a better explanation for the phenomenon is thought of. „You arę confident that you arę right” is exactly the broken logic that comes from that epistemology.
@@jyjjy7 In the Popperian-Deutschian worldview, every theory is a conjecture, waiting to be disproved by a better theory (for e.g. Einstein's crucial test that disproved the long standing Newton's theory of gravitation, and provided a better explanation that solved problems in the former theory such as absolute space and time). In fact I have heard him remark more than once "I wish they called it Keppler's misconception of planetary motion -> Newton's misconception of planetary motion and gravity -> Einstein's misconception of planetary motion and gravity, and so on)" because that's what they always will be. This goes in line with the philosophy of fallibilism, which claims that one can never know for sure the objective truth due to errors all along the way in obtaining any knowledge about the world in any field. And therefore one can only make conjectures that are approximations of the truth.
I agree that bringing up Trump where it doesnt belong so to speak because of your political bias is sort of weak but the lessons of Trump and Trumpism are interesting and you can derive a lot of data from this phenomenon.
I’ve watched many interviews with DD, and this is without a doubt one of the best. Thank you both!
Can’t agree more. The creativity and clarity with which DD speaks is quite breathtaking…which makes it sooo interesting.
It's rather ironic that discussions on Popperian epistemology often center too much on agreement. We need more controversy like this to move the discussion forward.
Real Genius on Display!!! Absolutely brilliant intellect.
Key extracts from the podcast:
1⃣ Belief Can Mislead Our Understanding of Thought
David Deutsch argues that the concept of "belief" often confuses how we understand human thought processes. Instead of relying on beliefs, we should focus on developing explanations and theories.
2⃣ Explanations Are More Important Than Strength of Belief
Our decisions should be based on the best explanations we have, not on how strongly we believe something. Understanding "why" is more valuable than the degree of confidence in a belief.
3⃣ The Limits of Probability and Statistics in Decision-Making
While useful in some contexts, probability and statistics can be misleading. They shouldn't replace deep understanding and solid explanations when making decisions.
4⃣ Probability Doesn't Capture Real-World Complexity
Relying solely on probability ignores the complexities of reality. Human creativity and unforeseen events can disrupt statistical predictions, making them ineffective.
5⃣ Science Pursues Truth by Continuously Refining Explanations
Even though we can't attain absolute certainty, science meaningfully pursues truth by constantly improving our explanations and eliminating errors.
6⃣ Understanding the Difference Between Propositions and Statements
Propositions: Abstract, precise concepts that can be definitively true or false.
Statements: Our expressions, which might be imprecise or ambiguous.
We strive to make our statements closely approximate true propositions.
7⃣ The Importance of the Correspondence Theory of Truth
A statement is considered true if it corresponds to the facts. Our goal is to enhance how well our statements align with reality, despite inherent imperfections.
8⃣ Explanations Should Take Priority Over Data Trends
Understanding underlying causes is crucial. Focusing on "why" helps us navigate an unpredictable world better than relying solely on patterns or statistical data.
9⃣ Human Creativity Makes Behavior Unpredictable
People can act in novel, unforeseen ways. This unpredictability means we must seek explanations for behavior rather than depending on statistical trends.
🔟 Key Takeaway: Emphasize Developing Explanations Over Holding Beliefs
To truly understand and engage with the world, we must prioritize developing and refining our explanations over merely holding beliefs or relying on probabilities.
Thanks for this helpful list!
32:46 relatable example
36:35 “you can control for the factors that you have a theory could affect the outcome”
59:57 on propositions and statements
1:04 on the connection between words and the physical world
Nice! Listening to a conversation directed to abstract, but not obscure or pretentious ideas, carried out in very clear and precise terms , where all parties are interested in genuinely learning from each other mutually, without any intrusion of 1up Smith ship or ego is like listening to Angels sing!
This was extremely clarifying. Thank you so much!
Yes, mr Deutsch would be a subpar hospital admin.
@@justanothernick3984Read your lessmeaning comment, sad.
@@johncarter1150
Yes, sadly academics don't always make the best suitable deciders.
Can we agree on this?
I don't believe in anything...
reality just is, watched this to understand what DD who is known as a physict philosopher,( similar to Sean Carroll), explain the concept of belief. The medical system anologys was coincidental.
@@johncarter1150
Belief is an elusive term. One needs to have a grounding for evidence and the best I can come up with is empirical consensus. There are some drawbacks but it beats all other forms in the end.
But my point was the pragmatic solution to a problem with collected data is a reasonable way of handling a situation whereas DD doesn't seem to accept that concept. It might not always be the optimal path but it's reasonable. Applicable to stocks, fantasy drafts and peak summer season at the outdoor pool. Markets might crash, players might get injured and the rain might spoil the afternoon by the pool but it's still a reasonable way of thinking about it.
Disclaimer:
Don't gamble with money or time you cannot afford to lose!
Deutsch: The probability of us hitting on an actual truth is Zero. We can't achieve infinite precision, so our statements are always ambiguous to some extend.
Oh I see you got the GOAT on
Excelent conversation. Glad i find it. Thanks. Subscribed. Will follow.
Thank you for this interview.
This was great 😊
There is an interesting fact regarding possible undecidability of Goldbach conjecture: if it would happen that Goldbach would be undecidable since it is obviously the so called Pi_1 statement, namely statement of the form: ,,for every element from (fixed) countable set some property (which is decidable by an algorithm in finite time) is true'' then it would follow that it willbe _true_. In other words, if Goldbach would turn out to be false it would be _provably false_: therefore undecidability of Goldbach conjecture implies that it is true. The same is true for Riemann Hypothesis but in this case the argument is a little bit more involved (I mean the arfgument to see that RH is in fact a Pi_1 statement-but one can do that). Of course, do not have an impression that is has to do with the fact that both problems: Golbach conjecture and RH are famous: it just happened that they turned out to be Pi_1 sentences.
Can we try to figure out all the books on David’s shelf?
Primes existed before the big bang. But only in an abstract way.
Great interview. Subscribed.
David’s explanation-based approach does a far better job of explaining Veblen and Giffen goods. I suspect he’s a fan of the Austrian method.
🍿!
Beliefs are easy to vary. A good explanation is not.
what a delightful mind to experience! same to you @interviewers
not sure how the algorithm led me here but I am very happy it did. I am all ears at just 2 mins in.
1:15:36 The point is that the moment the axioms were laid down, was the moment we invented all prime numbers. The axiom definition is the moment of creation of all that follows from them.
Belief is another form of superstition.
Wilson Elizabeth Martin Joseph Harris Barbara
Smith Charles Thompson Dorothy White Kimberly
Honestly this is the only interview where I’m asking myself wtf is David talking about? The whole hospital example sounds like he’s saying we shouldn’t use probabilities and statistics because they could be wrong. Well of course they could be wrong, we never have perfect information.
¿
I love David, but he needs to take a neuroscience course on how the brain deceives the Self. David has a belief in the Many World Theory . The majority of David's peer group sees this as a part of David's belief system. Best wishes
Week criticism, try harder not to include view based on what majority thinks. Argument or pass
I don't understand what he is trying to say at all honestly. Given theories are just models you must have a reasonable credence for its predictive applicability/accuracy to a given situation or you shouldn't use it. Reality may be deterministic, understanding it is inherently stochastic. We have no direct access to reality, solipsism is not logically refutable, fundamental ontologies are theoretical. Right now he is talking about regarding a proposition being "good enough", what is an evaluation of a theory as being good enough other than a credence? I can see how he could have a point when it comes to abstractions but he's a physicist, unless he is arguing this in context of a true theory of everything that is all encompassing he seems necessarily wrong. Statistical significance is a vital component of the scientific method, I don't see how it could be functionally replaced.
His first book, The Fabric of Reality, addresses most of these concerns.
If I understand his view correctly, a theory can only rise up as good because of elimination of its rival theories (due to logical holes, refutation by empirical evidence, etc depending on the field). Conforming evidence cannot be a sign of a good theory, only disproving evidence against its rivals. All this I read up about in his book The Fabric of Reality, chapter 7 "A conversation about justification".
@@KreatorX1029 That still makes no sense, it's always impossible to account for every possibility in a real world situation. It is *necessarily* the case that your best predictive theory is a guess unless you are Laplace's demon. If you have no measure by which to judge the accuracy of your theories/guesses you would constantly be taking crazy risks, because there's plenty of situations in which your best guess is still a bad one. I am relatively uneducated on economics, but I'm very well versed in physics. I have things I believe to be true that fall into both categories but I am MUCH more confident in my understanding electromagnetism than I am on the consequences of international trade agreements. The degree to which I'm confident of my understanding of any fact or situation is something I regularly actively estimate and is crucial to my decision making processes.
As for reading his book, I'll pass... I've watched this video in which he is supposed to be making his case for these ideas and he's just obviously wrong as far as I can tell. The pushback offered here is meek at best, the need to gauge confidence in knowledge is simply essential to functioning in the world. I *believe* that to be case with a level of confidence that's directly informing my decision that I am not interested in seeking out and reading his book claiming I'm wrong about how I decided I'm not interested.
@@jyjjy7you decided not to read his book is exactly the example of bad explanation.
Idead can go from 99.999% confidence to 0 at the exact moment a better explanation for the phenomenon is thought of.
„You arę confident that you arę right” is exactly the broken logic that comes from that epistemology.
@@jyjjy7 In the Popperian-Deutschian worldview, every theory is a conjecture, waiting to be disproved by a better theory (for e.g. Einstein's crucial test that disproved the long standing Newton's theory of gravitation, and provided a better explanation that solved problems in the former theory such as absolute space and time). In fact I have heard him remark more than once "I wish they called it Keppler's misconception of planetary motion -> Newton's misconception of planetary motion and gravity -> Einstein's misconception of planetary motion and gravity, and so on)" because that's what they always will be. This goes in line with the philosophy of fallibilism, which claims that one can never know for sure the objective truth due to errors all along the way in obtaining any knowledge about the world in any field. And therefore one can only make conjectures that are approximations of the truth.
The _absolute_ midwittery of feeling the need to inject Trump _absolutely everywhere_
Just to let you k"no" w, You are the only person who cares about your comment.
@@johncarter1150 I rest my case.
I agree that bringing up Trump where it doesnt belong so to speak because of your political bias is sort of weak but the lessons of Trump and Trumpism are interesting and you can derive a lot of data from this phenomenon.
@@ManicMindTrick It was a good thing in the end, as utter morons bloviating their "muh fascism" drivel helped elect him.
Let me hear you predict the outcome of the election.
I will subscribe to your channel if you get it wrong.
Obviously you read your own comments.
@@johncarter1150 Are you grieving sweetie