Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 My name is Jennifer Andrew Grossman, my friends and colleagues call me JAG. I'm the CEO of the Atlas society. And we are doing a clubhouse. Ask me anything with our founder, David Kelly. I'm also joined by my colleague, Scott mm-hmm <affirmative> Schiff. And, uh, we have a load of questions, uh, that have, um, come in on Instagram where, uh, we have, I think 66,000 is our latest it's growing every week, 66,000 followers. And, um, and those are, those are fun, but, uh, the, the way we handle those on Instagram is, uh, questions come in and we post one minute answers. And of course that is inadequate to really being able to unpack some of these questions. So of course we'll prioritize any, uh, questions from the audience. So please raise your hand and we will get to as many of your questions we can. And we've got a question from Lawrence. So Lawrence might one of those days where you
Speaker 1 00:01:19 Hear
Speaker 1 00:01:23 All right. Hi, David. Uh, so question I have for you is actually sort of a follow up to one that I previously gave Rob on Tuesday, and it was in regards to, um, borders and countries and immigration policy. And the reason I brought it up is just because I've been hearing a lot of different conversations from people, um, on this issue and sort of a follow up that I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on and hear the more of an objective as perspective is if a country like the United States, people come in and say it was founded upon ideas instead of, you know, uh, racial or blood identity was more on certain principles than doesn't such a country. I guess the term would be almost, you know, if people are gonna enter that country, they have to sort of, uh, understand that social contract and be willing to adopt it. But it seems that there's a lot of arguments that these things don't need to happen anymore. We, people should be free to roam from country to country as they please. So I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Is there some sort of, uh, keeping that is necessary within a country, or is it we more open to just promoting the ideas as people enter?
Speaker 2 00:02:44 Well, I that's, that's a good question and a hard one. Um, I would, let's start with, uh, the basic principles, uh, in a, in a, a free society. Um, people should be free to cross borders, um, subject to certain conditions like criminal background or contagious disease, um, that would, you know, are legitimate reasons for keeping people out. Um, and with the, also the condition that, you know, uh, uh, a nation ruled by a government has to be, um, uh, have some information about who's in the country. So I don't have any objection to, you know, when you enter the country, enter through a legal spot and a legal entry way and, um, just register and then come on in, go about your business that, um, now that said, of course our immigration laws put all kinds of restrictions on, in numerical restrictions on what, how many people from each part of the world can are allowed in.
Speaker 2 00:04:01 And that's why they're huge waiting list. And so such, uh, such an incentive for illegal immigration, but, um, that's the principle, uh, with subject to a few constraints, people should be free to cross borders, but as you say, America is, um, not founded on Nash on, on, uh, ethnic identity, religion, or race or anything else. It is founded on the ideas and it was unique in history. And to some extent still is, um, in that regard. And I, I believe strongly in that, um, American founding and that as the, uh, the civic religion, so to speak, that is our culture. That is the national political culture that, uh, America created. And, um, you know, it, it should still obtain and that's reflected, it can be reflected in, um, citizenship. You get citizenship, you have to, you know, go through the, uh, uh, you have to wait and then there's a test.
Speaker 2 00:05:14 And the test is, um, includes, I, I haven't seen the test in a long time, maybe it's changed, but, um, uh, used to include enough civic knowledge about, you know, the structure of the us government, the bill of rights and so forth that, um, you at least have to understand and pledge your allegiance to, um, to become a voting citizen, a full member of the, uh, of the society. And I think that's a, a good idea, too. Um, but combining those principles is not easy because people come with all kinds of ideas and over the 200 5300 years of our existence, um, people have come in with very different ideas. Um, part of the reason we have a mixed welfare state today is large amounts of large numbers of immigrants from, um, Europe in the late 19th century who were already, you know, which was already moving towards socialism, um, came in with those ideas and became part of the progressive movement.
Speaker 2 00:06:18 And so, um, but there's no, there's no good solution for that except persuasion and, um, and hopefully education, um, in, by teachers who are committed to at least in teaching civics, teaching, um, politics, um, understand and will convey those ideas to, to students. Now, all that said the vast welfare state we have, there's a, you know, an ongoing day constant issue of people, the, the allegation anyway, that people are coming to get welfare, um, years ago, decades ago, actually, when I wrote about this, that was not, I found statistical data that undermined that claim. I don't know what the situation is today. Um, and there's lots of room for debate and also reform on eligibility or welfare. But I do think I, I just go back to my principles and, um, of, of, uh, first freedom of movement. And secondly, uh, the American exceptional, the American, um, quote unquote civic, religion that, um, makes us unique. And I think those, if you start there, um, you at least have, um, you know, the way to navigate the more detailed issues, uh, of immigration today.
Speaker 2 00:08:01 Next question question. Thank you, Lawrence. That a great question. And, um, I look forward to Tom to your question too, but I want, I wanna just say something, um, as regulars on this, uh, clubhouse, um, venue now, uh, I do one of the, uh, clubhouse every month as do many of the other scholars. And, um, I sometimes do ask me anything. Uh, these are fun and it, it just, um, cause I get to deal with the unexpected, um, in real time, but also, uh, I do like to, you know, cover the specified topics that I'm gonna cover. And so I'm looking for topics for the fall and, um, I'm writing down some of these issues, but if anyone has a particular request, um, uh, those of you who are alive on the, uh, on this call, uh, please feel free to say, Hey, could you do a clubhouse on that? I won't make any promises, but I'll make a note. Thanks. So Tom, go ahead,
Speaker 3 00:09:07 Tom, can you unmute, Tom may be having issues. We can go to professor hill while Tom's getting that fixed.
Speaker 0 00:09:25 Yeah, Tom, cuz I don't see the mute button you might need to do what Lawrence did, which is just sign out and sign back in. But we have another scholar professor, Jason Hill is here with us.
Speaker 4 00:09:41 Hi Ja. Hi Scott. Hi David. Um, David, this should be a question right up your alley in, in, in preparation for my clubhouse talk that I'm giving tomorrow, which is on living in the age of nihilism, which is a huge topic. Um, I can't talk about every single form of nihilism. There is cosmic existential, um, metaphysical, nihilism, moral nihilism. You know, I've decided to talk about just to give a heads up about epistemological, nihilism and David. I I'm wondering if you could sort of, um, distinguish between, well epistemological nihilism is a, is a, a form of skepticism that says that knowledge at all does not exist. It's it has no basis. In, in reality, there is no reference that we can point to that would corroborate knowledge and epistemological fall, which says that there is knowledge, but it's uncertain. So I probably put content in that direction.
Speaker 4 00:10:49 There is human knowledge, but human reason or another, um, faculties that we have for apprehending, uh, knowledge, um, are unreliable. And I want to say, I'm gonna sort of elicit your help here from my top tomorrow. If you think that a epistological Salib Salib, that is the idea that knowledge is uncertain doesn't in the end, lead us to some kind of nihilism epistemological nihilism, because if we undercut reason as a faculty for obtaining certainty in the knowledge realm, it leads to kind of radical skepticism and the logical terminal point of that radical skepticism seems to me like something like epistemological nihilism, where we're just gonna say I can't account for any knowledge that I have, even if it's a justified belief, if it's, if it's so radical, it's if it's gonna become so radically skeptic size, then I can't call it knowledge. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 2 00:12:01 Um, I, I think I, I agree basically that there's a downward spiral, um, through, uh, at least the common forms of fallible to skepticism, to, uh, nihilism and, um, which is the dead end and incoherent because any claim of nihilism claims to be asserting something that's distinct from non nihilism, I at least assumes law of non contradiction. Um, as an assertion that's put forward is true. Uh, and not just the, the opinion of the person speaking. There's some people like SIS who say, oh, just my opinion. Um, and then the thing is, uh, you still ask where'd you, where did you get your opinions? And so one, one issue here is, is the primacy of existence. All of our, all of our cognitive activity is oriented toward a world that is not created by the mind. Um, and that's why cant is, um, on the wrong side of the tracks, uh, on that count because of his belief that we can't ever know reality as it is only the, uh, phenomena that are partly constituted by our own cognitive capacity.
Speaker 2 00:13:24 Uh, but at least these, but, and people who believe anything like that tend to invent some new form of objectivity, some new standard and cons cases was, um, and it in the most common, still the most common answer is well it's, it is universal agreement among, um, people that as we all agree on something, it's, it, it's a kind of, you know, social relativism, um, of which there are many problems, but let me go back to, but the, the hard nut here, um, is fallible because that is, that is an effort I think, or can be understood as an effort to understand something that that is correct. Um, because of our, our conceptual capacities for, um, going beyond the correct evidence of our senses involves concepts. It involves induction, involves deduction, inferences that, uh, we put together and to acquire knowledge of things, way, way beyond what we can directly see here or touch.
Speaker 2 00:14:34 And I mean, that's the immense power of the human mind. Um, but it carries with it, the risk of error, um, because unlike perception is, is not subject to error. You see what you, you see what you're, what the world and your apparatus, um, give rise to causally. And you're always seeing something that there's always something there. Even if you, if you're in unusual circumstances and can't identify it conceptually, or identify it wrong, like looking at the vent, sticking water, and saying it's been, but, um, <laugh> yeah. I, I heard a, a story about a philosophy professor teaching epistemology, who had a, you know, glass of water with a stick in it. And of course all the students knew the, uh, knew it was just an illusion. And then at the end of the class or the end of semester, he pulled out the stick and it actually was bent.
Speaker 2 00:15:32 Um, that is one of the more destructive things, um, uh, teaching techniques I've ever heard, but anyway, um, but so you have to admit the possibility of error and that means that we need, uh, epistemology, uh, uh, epistological methods for keeping our, our, um, conclusions open to further evidence as it contains. But it does not mean there's no certainty. Um, there are many things we're certain about, uh, I'm certain that I'm talking right now, uh, and I'm pretty certain Jason that you are listening because I'm hearing you. Um, and, um, you're still on the, uh, on the call, there are many, many things, a vast number of things of which we were totally certain it's the fallible, um, I think is taking issues at, or building its case and right. Issues at the frontiers of knowledge in science, in other areas, or areas like history, where they're so complicated that, um, you know, there's, there's, it's hard to find a, um, it does something like history or even more, um, you know, um, one things, another view fields are aesthetic judgment.
Speaker 2 00:16:52 Um, we can't rule out, um, wrong interpretation or compare them by doing experiments by, um, you know, doing quantitative tests. So there is, uh, you know, I, in those realms, I think infallibilism is trying to do something valid, which is opposing dogmatism that just closed-minded, um, refusal to consider any, any evidence or any counter argument against your, the position you, you happen to believe, but it's, as a general epistemology, it's taken way out of context and it, um, it's, it, it would be undermined if everything was fallible, we couldn't trust anything. I, if I couldn't be certain there that I'm speaking, you're listening that there are cars on this street outside my window, that I live on the only floor of a building, Washington, DC. I mean, I just, I, we could all go on and on with the things that we are absolutely certain of.
Speaker 2 00:17:59 And so, um, if, if certainty in, as such is impossible, that means cognition, knowledge is impossible. Awareness of reality is impossible. And that contradicts itself. That is, uh, so that's the best I can do the question of certainty and, uh, openness to further evidence is a hard one in epistemology. I'll admit I've worked on it for many years and don't feel I have the final, well, maybe <laugh> in philosophies. Another one we're talking about final answers is, uh, is hard. But anyway, um, I, I don't have the best theory, the theory about it that I would like to have, but nevertheless, um, I would urge you to, to, uh, not take the, uh, this straightforward universal kind of fallible that I know people have advocated, um, and limit it to limit the idea or reformulate the idea as openness to evidence. So I could, I could go on, let me stop there. Uh, Jason, see if that got to your point,
Speaker 4 00:19:19 It is helpful. Um, it just, but I, and I'll stop here cause I'm gonna talk about this tomorrow. It is helpful. It just, I'm just worried that even in areas where verifiability is very, very difficult, that it does tend towards a kind of agnosticism, um, regarding knowledge that in the end leaves us even skeptical about axioms, like existence, identity, and consciousness, um, because those are things that can't be proven. So how would the cannabis epistemological cannabis deal with phenomenal that are unprovable? We just have to sort of accept them. So there's a kind of agnosticism that I see there that still leaves me a little bit uncomfortable, but thanks for the clarification. And I'll, I'll, I'll take this up a little bit in more depth tomorrow.
Speaker 2 00:20:10 Okay. I'll look forward to that. Thanks.
Speaker 0 00:20:13 Thanks. Jason also wanted to, uh, acknowledge we have another one of our senior scholars, professor Richard Salzman is in the room. So, um, we got quite the, uh, the banner team here to today, Tom.
Speaker 5 00:20:30 Oh, thank you. I hope you can hear me now. And thank you, David, for hosting this, uh, session. I didn't know that the it's, uh, once a month, but in any case, I, uh, I had a theme when I composed my, uh, set of questions. So if you want to defer this to some other time, that's fine. It is on the nature of thought and its correspondence to facts. And I had three, uh, questions. I followed this pretty much based on what you had with Patterson in pursuit episode 61 and 76 back in 2017 with Steven, uh, at Patterson. And I thought, Hmm, maybe, uh, David should have more of those meetings, but it never came to fruition. So here I am, uh, with some of these questions and the first one I have is on modal propositions and the many world idea. I think you mentioned this once before back, perhaps in the perennial questions, um, cassettes or CDs that I used to have.
Speaker 5 00:21:26 So you, you talked about that, but I like a little more elaboration on that. If you could provide that second one is on the metaphysical, EPIs, epidemiological, and hybrid possibilities, uh, that, that, uh, you would allude to the idea of facts. Um, and, and how we, um, we, we see certainty, uh, um, when we have more information and non-negative, I mean, no, um, no counterfactual. Um, so I like that, uh, elaboration third one is on hypothetical propositions and, um, as well as disjunctive propositions, because to, uh, if I understand what summers is saying, it, um, they are negative valence. And what is the, the structure of the proposition with respect to fact that they, they, they give us and, um, fourth one is on future and task.
Speaker 3 00:22:22 He may need the chance to kind of go through these first three, if he, you know, we, if we have time to do those three, uh, David I'll defer to you.
Speaker 2 00:22:34 Um, yeah, I think I, I think I know the fourth question, uh, like at future propositions, um, there's a famous, uh, called a famous example called Aristotle C battle. I don't know if that's what you were getting at Tom, but, um, um, alright, let me, let me run through these quickly. These are huge topics and Tom, you are obviously very, uh, um, deeply, uh, thoughtful and educated about these, these topics. So, and I won't be able to address them at your level, uh, fully, but let me just say something motor propositions are, um, ones like, uh, statement P is possible. It is, uh, necessary, impossible, um, uh, contradictory. Um, these can be formulated in pro uh, in proposition logic and in different ways through group tables. But the, um, the point is I, I, um, from, from an objective standpoint, uh, when, think about the, uh, possible, uh, versus a necessary, uh, philosophers like to talk about possible worlds, well, there's only one possible world.
Speaker 2 00:23:54 The real one, uh, possibility is something that exists within the world as, uh, uh, a capacity for action, um, on the part of an entity that's capable of doing that acting, but isn't now salt is soluble right now, even it's, I'm not wrapping it in water. So, um, it's possible for salt to dissolve. It's not possible for, uh, whatever else <laugh>, um, I think it's gold that won't dissolve anyway. Um, so that whole idea is, um, of possible worlds is wrong and modal concepts like possible and necessary, um, are useful only within the metaphysics of realism, which is there's a world. And, um, whatever is true is true of, and in that world, the, um, the, your second question about facts, this is interesting because I've, I wrote a paper some years ago that we've used as a discussion basis for long discussions. I, there's no way I can summarize the point.
Speaker 2 00:25:01 Um, but I read that paper. Oh, you did? Okay. Well then maybe we should, uh, just have a separate conversation or email exchange about that because, uh, even to give the rest of the audience an idea of what the issue is, um, it would take the rest of this hour. <laugh> um, yeah. Um, hypothetical and destructive, uh, proposition hypothetical ones are like, if then Q disjunctive, uh, propositions P or Q, uh, we use these all the time. Um, if then statements are used to identify causal relationships. Um, uh, if the barometer is very high, rain is likely, um, et cetera, and disjunctive ones are, you know, someone has a baby, you'll see either boy or a girl, but we don't know. So we need these terms, but they are the logic of them. And the confirmation of them depends on the, the P and Q, the El the constituent elements, um, and a broader context of information that like, in the case of a birth, we know that people give rise only to two, you know, human humans, humans come in two sexes, like most, uh, mammals and other, um, orders, um, animal life.
Speaker 2 00:26:28 And so we, we know in advance from that vast biological context, that it's one or the other, but if we don't know which that's all we can say, um, that's a short topic. I, the analysis of that are integration of those pro kinds of pro compound propositions are called into my analysis of facts is not something I've, I've done completed yet. It's high on my list. I'm working on going back to that paper and working on it. So maybe I, um, we've gone into, you know, even as briefly as my answer was, uh, maybe we've gone into enough depth. Um, and, um, but I invite you to, um, send questions, particularly I'm particularly interested that you're familiar with, uh, Fred summer's work. Um, so, uh, but let's leave it there for now.
Speaker 0 00:27:31 All right. Yes. And, uh, and Tom we'll have David on, um, once a month. Uh, and, uh, of course we're also going to have at our annual gala coming up in October, uh, we're going to have a seminar seminars with all of our scholars, and that will be another opportunity to network and discuss some of these issues at greater length. So you can check out that link above if you are in the Southern California area or willing to join us there. So, um, JP, you changed your profile, pick looking very sharp.
Speaker 6 00:28:07 Thank you. Uh, thank you, Jennifer. I, um, well that was, that was way above my, my armchair level philosophy, but I am, I am very much interested in, in something that David said after, uh, Jason announced his, his room, which is, is bound to be very, very pertinent to what I'm, um, diving on. But, um, my question to you, David, when you mentioned that, um, that persuasion is really the, the only real, real, uh, the, the, the only ethical maybe, uh, way to go. I was having a conversation with a, well, it was a room here in clubhouse and they were, they were all can Canan and they were all, uh, postmodern, and they were all discussing all these truth, talking about your truth, my truth, and how, how they all loved each other. And, and, and they were tolerating every, every, every single worldview as palette and, and needing its own space and its own treatment.
Speaker 6 00:29:19 Um, which is so ridiculous. But I mean, I was, I was stomaching this whole thing. And, um, I was thinking, how do you persuade, how do you persuade, um, a doctrine? Because it's, it's, it is doctrine when, when, when, when I engage with someone there and, and he got a little bit heated, he said that, well, you that's your truth. And, and you are, um, I mean, I respect your view and I love you. And, and I was, it was even offensive to, to, to have that said to me, because it was all simply dismissing me and, uh, uh, we're going with this narrative and, and, but, well, that's exactly what I mean. I said, it's very convenient for someone in authority to give you a narrative and say, this is reality. And this, and this is why you guys believe in such ridiculous things, because if it comes from, from authority, you will believe it because that's, that's the go to, you're not expected to have a brain. You, you're not expected to use your own reason. And even when you say I am, I mean, you're acknowledging be being right there. It's, it's, you are conscious of your self. So you have certainty, you have certainty of things and they were saying going on. No, and no. And so, so it was very frustrating. And, uh, I guess I would love to have an anecdote from you and on, on, on, on a episode in your life in which you were able to persuade, thank you.
Speaker 2 00:31:01 Oh gosh. Um, I wish I could give you a good one. <laugh> um, I have, uh, you know, in, in my work on epistemology and, and years and years of, um, explaining the primacy of existence, um, and why it's different from the primacy of consciousness, which is what you, the people you're talking about were embracing. Um, there are, there are some classic arguments, um, it's called, um, uh, the self reation arguments, which go to the effect. You, you are saying that, um, you're, you're what you believe is true only for you. Um, and what's true. What I believe is true for me. Well, um, what I wanna ask is that sounds like a universal statement. Everyone's truth is true for that person. Are you saying that that's a universal statement about all people all, and it's a statement about you, you live in a reality with other people.
Speaker 2 00:32:09 Uh, there's lots of other things besides people and minds, but, um, uh, other people are part of the world and you're making a, a universal claim about something that you are asserting is true. Is it true? Just because you believe it so that if I say, well, no, I don't, I don't think it, you know, we all have our separate truths. I think it's, there's one world and one truth. And so you're wrong, your truth is not true. It's false. Um, is that then true for me? So you you're saying my, my beliefs are, are, are true for me. My world exists for me and I'm saying, no, it doesn't. So that's my belief. Is that true for me now? These arguments, um, I, I think are logically decisive and, um, are almost completely unpersuasive to people who <laugh>, that one's talking about. I, um, when I was in graduate school, I was writing a, uh, graduate thesis, PhD thesis about this. And I had a very smart, um, advisor who tended toward that view. And, um, so I ran all these arguments by him and he always had some comeback. That was I, so I'd go away and I'd come back and answer the, this comeback and you'd have another comeback. It goes on and on and on. But I, the, and so reputation is probably not the, the, um, the best thing. It's not, probably not even possible because if someone does not accept, for example, uh, that there's a world there.
Speaker 2 00:33:59 If someone does not accept that the law of identity is universal across for anything in the world. And for any human being, trying to understand the world, if someone doesn't accept that, there's no argument, there's no argument. You can't go anywhere with that. What you can do, maybe if someone is more or less innocently mistaken. Um, and I don't think most of these people are, but, um, for someone who's instantly confused about it, just ask, why do you believe that? And then, you know, if you invite an answer to that, that will tell you something about whether the person is just responding to the authority of post modernism, um, intellectual authority that it has today, or is sorry, genuinely confused. And, um, but if, if you ask, why do you believe that, um, even, Hey, that's interesting. Um, why do you believe that? What made you think that, um, and invite someone to think in the course of thinking, they're gonna have to give reasons, use logic, maybe point to things in the world.
Speaker 2 00:35:19 Like there's typical, lots of classical, uh, skeptical arguments. Like, um, we have perceptual illusions, or it's possible to be wrong when we thought we were right. And you, you can go through those. I, there are answers to those things. Um, but, and, and so persuasion may be possible in some cases, um, but re refutation. I would, I, I would step back from attempting to refu it. If someone does not be willing to engage in explanation and explain this, then there's no, there's no point in the discussion. It can't happen. Nothing. There's no progress possible. Um, I mean, there's certain things that are just someone doesn't accept the cans of logic, the law of identity non-contradiction and ultimately the primacy of existence, um, all the, the very foundations for thinking about epistemology or any topic don't exist, they're undermined, it's like, you know, going do a doctor and saying, I'm not gonna take your advice. Uh, cuz I believe witch doctor. Well, okay then there's nothing I can do for you
Speaker 6 00:36:43 That would've been, um, yeah, I should have, I should have channeled that way. Brilliant. Thank you David. Thank you.
Speaker 2 00:36:51 Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:36:54 And as I promised, we have the all star team here. Um, professor Steven Hicks is joined us up here on stage and may have some insights into this or did you have a separate question for David Steven? And also we have been experiencing this issue on this clubhouse for whatever reason. So, um, Steven, you might just need to, and meanwhile, I see Richard who has a mute button, so he's able to unmute,
Speaker 7 00:37:28 Thank you, Jennifer.
Speaker 2 00:37:31 Hi. Hi. Uh, just let me, you know, interrupt for a second. I hope Steven does come back be and because he can give a much better fuller answer and more informed answer about nihilism than I can, uh, in re in regard to Jason's question. Hey Richard, how are you?
Speaker 7 00:37:46 Very well, David, this is a great session and I have a question. Um, feel free to say I have no idea what you're talking about, Richard, and, uh, we'll talk offline, but I I've long been curious whether you think there's any legitimacy to the concept in method called abduction, B D U C T as opposed to induction and deduction. And from what I, and the reason this interests me is I'm do forecasting. I do economic and investment forecasting. And so yes, I, I wanna know the laws of deduction and induction, but mostly I'm interested in inference in forecasting and, and the probabilistic aspects of it. And you know, there's a lot of literature on what's Besian inference and, you know, updating sequentially, updating our forecast based on what we already know, but I've come across in recent years, this concept called abduction and it's supposed and it's, and apparently began with Charles Pierce, the pragmatist philosopher.
Speaker 7 00:38:53 And, and it, it, it, it offers principles for inferring things, but without having, uh, you know, absolute certainty. So, so one example that's commonly given is you, you hear that Tom and Harry, uh, ended their friendship, but then two weeks later you see them jogging together and that's all, you know, and you infer that they made up that the friendship has been repaired in some way, but it's clearly not a, you know, a confirma, a full confirmation didn't investigate, didn't ask them. And, and yet if you have to make inferences like that, well, we do all the time. We have to infer certain thing. So that that's all I have. I I'm, I'm just asking whether you ever came across it in all your studies of epistemology and whether you think it's even a valid, uh, you know, kind of like third way, uh, besides deduction and induction to knowing things and inferring things.
Speaker 2 00:39:53 Um, well, no, I don't think it's a, a third way. Um, abduction, yes. As you mentioned, was introduced by Pierce and, uh, what it normally means is inference to the best explanation.
Speaker 7 00:40:05 Um,
Speaker 2 00:40:07 Uh, so it's broadly inductive, uh, if, when what's Ted with induction, um, usually what the person means is that induction is limited to generalization from a sample. Um, mm-hmm, <affirmative> I see a bunch of swans are all white. I, for all, swans are white mm-hmm <affirmative>, um, and, um, re induction to the best explanation is broader. It it's, I mean, a scientific theory normally takes into account, um, a range of things that it's trying to explain and a range of data experimental and other data that, um, control what, what the possible alternatives are. And, you know, typically, I mean, the typical method is you think of what are the, what are the, what are the possible explanations for this phenomenon? Um, well maybe I can, I, I can come up with three that are consistent with the evidence mm-hmm <affirmative>. So I trust experiment that will distinguish between them, uh, confirm one over the others, but that's, um, that's also known as, you know, the hypothetical deductive method in, in, uh, science philosophy of science.
Speaker 2 00:41:23 Mm-hmm <affirmative>, I mean, I think it's, I, to me, I induction, um, abduction rather comes down to, um, a more general process of inquiry, uh, that we use for more complicated questions where it's not a simple extrapolation from the sample, but it is takes into account of a number of factors. Like, you know, originally the, you know, our, the views of the solo system that emerged in the, from NICUs to, uh, to Newton, um, they gathered more and more evidence, um, from different sources and eventually came up with the hypothesis and Newton's laws of gravitation, um, as the best explanation, um, and still for most things the best, um, today for, you know, why, why objects, physical objects in space are move as they do. Um, or another example that I recently was writing about, um, Klock Holmes stories. Mm-hmm, <affirmative> I Lovelock Holmes
Speaker 7 00:42:33 Stories
Speaker 2 00:42:34 Are, uh, abductive, he's gathering evidence. And, um, usually there's a false hypothesis by Thero or one of the other detectives, right. That he knows it's not compatible with some fact or other, and then he comes up with the best explanation. It's not, you know, still subject to further evidence if it comes along. So it's inductive, but, um, in the broad sense,
Speaker 7 00:42:59 Yeah, the Perry masons are done that way as well. Okay. That's helpful, David. I, I, I, I wanted to make sure I wasn't, uh, misinterpreting it as, um, you know, like a bridge between deduction and induction and actually the way you, something really a bridge in, in both in two cases, you said it's a it's, uh, relates to deduction and then also induction. So I'm wondering whether it's a, a third helpful way of trying to know things, and it doesn't sound like you're saying it's a total goofball idea from the pragmatist. You're saying it falls in either one of the other camps, and it's not a third way. Uh, I don't wanna extend this, but just wanna make sure I, right.
Speaker 2 00:43:41 Although I, I, I should add that, um, abduction as a process for you choosing the best explanation often involves deductive develop elements. We have an account this, and we say, if that's true, then X must follow let's test and see if X is the case. That's a deductive argument. Um, so there are components of both in it, but it, the overall it's inductive because it is, uh, uh, based on a finite, um, amount of evidence available and sure. Holmes has yeah. Is great. Another great example, his abductions, uh, are based on a whole string of deductive arguments.
Speaker 7 00:44:25 Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 00:44:26 Uh, I saw this Ash, I know this Ash, or I saw this tattoo on the man's arm. Yeah. I know that tattoo is only done in China. So the man was in China. Yeah,
Speaker 7 00:44:36 Yeah, yeah. But also as the, as the stories unravel UN roll out the new in the new evidence comes in. So he also revises with new data. So that sounds more indu inductive. Okay. Thank you, David. That was great. Thank you. That really helps. Thanks.
Speaker 2 00:44:52 Great.
Speaker 0 00:44:55 And Steven is back. I, you know, I'm gonna start if I don't see a mute button on somebody I'll a separate to know
Speaker 8 00:45:07 EPIs. Uh, I wanted to ask, uh, an intellectual biography question of you, David. Uh, and I wondered about once in a while, uh, your graduate school days when you were, uh, working on your dissertation, you took courses at Princeton. I know Richard RTY was your professor and the advisor for your dissertation. And since, uh, RDY was such a giant name in the last generation in, uh, American and world philosophy, or if you had just some, uh, recollections of what he was like as a, as a teacher, as a dissertation advisor. Um, that's it.
Speaker 2 00:45:48 Okay. Well, thank you. Yeah, RDY um, passed away some years ago. Um, at the time I knew him, he was, uh, um, in the analytic philosophy camp at Princeton as was everyone else at Princeton almost, but, um, he was also, you know, reading Heger and Dewey and other things, and he became much more of a, it became much more central in his life afterwards, but the things that I worked on him with, um, had to do with, uh, epistemologist uh, of the time, like, uh, coin Orian, uh, um, sellers, um, corporate sellers and the, um, issues of empiricism. And foundationalism, that is foundationalism is the issue. Whether there is a foundation for knowledge, something that starting point, and empiricists say, of course there is perception, but, um, there's is there was a lot of skepticism about that. So anyway, um, but he was, I, I mean, I, even though I, I, I opposed pretty much everything he stood for and vice versa. Um, he was a great teacher. Um, he was open interested, uh, when I wrote my thesis, I'm not bragging here cuz it's just his opinion, but he said, you know, if there's a defensive foundationalism, I think you have it, that's the best thing I've seen. So, um, he would say things like that. And, um, he was, it worked very hard to get his students into, um, uh, you know, to their first academic jobs. He wrote letters of recommendation and talk with, uh, colleagues and, you know, he was already very well known.
Speaker 2 00:47:52 Um, he, uh, one of the great ironies was that at the time I was studying with him, he wrote a paper called the, the world well lost, which is why philosophy has no legitimate intellectual function. <laugh> it is just a conversation of ideas. Uh, it doesn't add anything to the knowledge of science and everything. And yet he was one of the best advisors and people sought him out because of that. He was a great advisor and, um, it was always seemed to me like an irony. He thinks philosophy is, um, you know, kind of a, not very productive discipline, but he was what so helpful in getting his students into philosophy. <laugh> so, anyway, um, this is an interesting guy.
Speaker 8 00:48:49 Yeah. Thanks for that. Fascinating.
Speaker 2 00:48:53 Yeah. Thanks. Nice to remember.
Speaker 3 00:48:57 Nice to hear that background, uh, SK, welcome to the stage. Are you able to unmute SK? You may need to leave and come back if you're unable to
Speaker 0 00:49:22 Otherwise, uh, let's take a question from our trove of Instagram questions. Uh, okay. Here's one, um, asking it's AIAN isn't everyone.
Speaker 2 00:49:42 Um, no short answer, long answer, longer answer. Um, that, that claim is, um, uh, known in philosophy as psychological egoism. The idea that everyone actually is selfish, um, and I believe objectiveism has, you know, we've, it's been pointing out many, many times before and not just objective this, but many other philosophers. It that it, it doesn't get to the essence. If you say that, when you say that everyone is self-interested, you're assuming simply that their interest is defined by whatever they want to do by whatever motive they have, including whatever values they're trying to seek. So even an altruist, he gives money to the poor or a mother Teresa who spends her life in poverty. Um, among poor are sick people, um, is doing what she's, what she wanted to do because of her altruist beliefs. And, um, she's giving, she's getting self-esteem out of it.
Speaker 2 00:50:50 But none of that is gets to the real question about interest. Interest is not whatever you want to do interest is what is in your interest objectively by the standard, uh, for objectives, the standard of promoting your life. Some things promoted, some things don't. And if you choose the things that don't, you're not being selfish, not truly. And in that respect, there are genuine altruists who, who are elevating other people to a status above themselves and, um, engaging in sacrifice, which is not, uh, egoistic. So the ethical egoism starts with, um, some standard of, of what, what your self-interest is. And then from there asks what, uh, under what conditions are people actually pursuing their self-interest as so understood. So, um, I can refer people to other, uh, sources on this. Um, Nathaniel Brandon wrote, um, I think there's something in the, uh, virtual selfishness book. Isn't, everyone's selfish, which I'd recommend, um, it gives the answer, uh, essentially the same answer I just did.
Speaker 3 00:52:17 Great. Um, I've got one here. Um, do you think it's time to get rid of the death penalty?
Speaker 2 00:52:29 Oh, um, I don't have a, um, I have mixed feelings about it. Uh, I, I don't have a clear conception, uh, but let me just say why, what the two, you know, consider two main considerations are. One is, uh, I think there are people that things people do, um, killing, especially the more brutal forms of killing rape even, um, that, that involves, uh, um, certainly rape with murder that really deserve that a person is saying, I, you know, I'm my actions convey that I don't have any respect for human rights and I'm, that means he's forfeiting his own. And so, um, on a scale of punishment, um, I think, um, you know, that goes from shoplifting to murder and, uh, uh, that penalty is I have no moral problem with it. Uh, what I do have is a problem that in, in approving proving guilt, establishing guilt beyond certainty of a doubt, um, in that case where a person's life is at stake is I worry that we don't have the EPIs, the culture of rationality, um, that juries would need that would provide us with juries who are totally committed to objectivity. Um, I think that was I Rand's reservation as well. Um, so I, I don't know how all of that falls out. Um, that's fair, but I just, when I, when I see people getting certainly, um, the, the whole system of parole, um, even for, you know, really for serial murders, um, um, I mean, they should all get life without parole, from what, without possibility of parole, at least. So anyway, that hard question.
Speaker 3 00:54:38 Okay. Professor Hicks, did you have another, uh, question wanted,
Speaker 8 00:54:44 Yes. I actually wanted to follow up on, uh, Dr. Salman's question about abduction. I like David's answer to it, but what about the, this hypothesis when I've thought about, uh, abduction that the abduction is not a third logical form, separate from induction and deduction, but rather it is a psychological variant that in both induction and deduction, you start with some premises and you're looking for the conclusion that follows from them, but when we are doing explanation, uh, and you said it's a species of, uh, you know, inferences of the best explanation. What we have in fact is the conclusion, but we're looking for the best set of premises that are going to derive that conclusion. So it's the same logic in both cases, but in one case, you're starting with premises and you're trying to derive logically the conclusion, but in the other case, abduction, you have the conclusion and you're asking what explains it.
Speaker 8 00:55:45 And so what are the, the premises that do? So, you know, so for example, I can say, you know, I, if I know all humans are mortal as a premise, and I know Socrates is a human, and I say, well, what follows from this? And then my biological tells me that Socrates is a, is a mortal. Um, but then if we started the other way, you know, we find Socrates is dead. I would say, Hey, whoa, Socrates is, is a mortal, uh, what, what explains this? And then we would backtracking to say, well, you know, it's a fact that all humans are mortal and, and Socrates was a human. So in both cases, it's the same logic, but we are psychologically approaching the same, uh, trio or, or set of set of fact premises and conclusions from a different direction.
Speaker 2 00:56:32 Um, yeah, that's really interesting, Steven, it's an angle I had never thought of. Um, you know, it does relate to that. You know, my logic book and most logic books point is made that, um, inference goes from premises to conclusion. Um, in explanation, it goes the opposite way. You start with the fact, and you're trying to find out the, uh,
Speaker 8 00:56:55 Right,
Speaker 2 00:56:56 The, the, um, hypothesis that explains the fact. And, um, it, it really two ways. I mean, there, you can still talk about the premises. A lot of the same standards still apply, um, to explanation that apply to inference. Um, my only reservation and I have to think about this is that, um, searching for the best explanation is a cognitive device. We want to know, we're trying to answer the question, what is the cause or the underlying, um, reasons that this, that this observable event, uh, or phenomenon, uh, exists or happened. And so we end up with the cognitive structure, uh, and for example, you know, take my solar system example. Um, now we have knowledge that the solar system operates as it does non planets and electric orbits, et cetera. Um, but initially we had just, uh, observations of stars, sun cetera. Um, so yeah, I think, I think it's, there's a psychological difference. Um, and let me leave it there cuz it's, I, I haven't thought about it. It's a great point. Thanks.
Speaker 8 00:58:23 Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 3 00:58:25 Yeah. You were asking, uh, about ideas for future shows that could be its own, uh, topic.
Speaker 4 00:58:32 Can I, can I interject here just briefly?
Speaker 3 00:58:35 Sure.
Speaker 4 00:58:36 Uh, Steven, it seems to me and David that to grow the psychological route, there would have to be some kind of gaping LACOE in the sampling so that you're giving an interpretation that goes way outside the evidence that one could really plausibly reasonably infer de in inductively. So it seems Steven that when we are involved in abduction, that we're still working plausibly and reasonably with evidence within the sampling that doesn't commit us to going too far outside and interpretational schema. Um, yes. So it's psychological seems like, okay, Brent and Harry broke up last week. I see them running. They made up that seems more psychological because, um, there, there are, we don't have enough evidence. That's, I'm, I'm trying to, I think there needs to be some sort of Launa in the sampling for us to sort of really, um, go the psychological role. But once we're still working with a set of, um, a body of evidence within the sampling, I still, I think we can avoid the psychologizing. I I'm just throwing that out there. Yeah.
Speaker 3 01:00:01 This is incredibly rich. I I'd love to keep it going on, but I mean, right now, uh, Jennifer is getting ready to interview Charles Nagy on the Atlas society asks, uh, a professor fired from UCF for speaking out against, uh, woke narratives. Um, at 8:00 PM Eastern tonight, Richard Salzman will be back hosting his morals and market series. This one on how markets elevate our morals. And tomorrow back here on clubhouse at 4:00 PM Eastern, like, uh, professor hill said, he's gonna be discussing America in the age of nihilism. And, uh, we hope you're able to participate in those, uh, you know, again, uh, the Atlas society asks Charles Nagy is on now. So we hope you're able to do that. And we hope to be able to talk about this issue, uh, in depth further was some really rich information you guys were getting into at the end.
