Increments: Recent Episodes
Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani
Vaden Masrani, a PhD student in machine learning at UBC and Ben Chugg, a research fellow at Stanford Law School, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and law. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book The Enigma of Reason by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! *We discuss * - Reason as a social phenomenon - The two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others - Reason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories - The "intellectualist" vs the "interactionist" approach to reason - Nassim Taleb's notion of "skin in the game" - The consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche - The marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings Quotes: The interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. EoR (pg. 332) In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. EoR (pg. 247) References Dan Sperber's talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsjWo6K4w0) at the Santa Fe Institute Image credit: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama Social media everywhere Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Send a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
We cover the spicy showdown between the two of the world's most headstrong philosophers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper. In a dingy Cambridge classroom Wittgenstein once threatened Popper with a fireplace poker. What led to the disagreement? In this episode, we continue with the Conjectures and Refutations series by analyzing Chapter 2: The Nature of Philosophical Problems And Their Roots In Science, where Popper outlines his agreements and disagreements with Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein. We discuss: - Are there philosophical problems? - Why are scientific disciplines divided as they are? - How much of philosophy is meaningless pseudo-babble? (Hint: Not none) - Wittgenstein's background and feud between him and Popper - Wittgenstein 1 and 2 (pre and post Tractatus) - The danger of philosophical inbreeding - Two of Popper's examples of philosophical problems: 1. Plato and the Crisis in Early Greek Atomism 2. Immanuel Kant's Problem of Knowledge. - Musica universalis - The Problem of Change - How is knowledge possible? Quotes My first thesis is that every philosophy, and especially every philosophical ‘school’, is liable to degenerate in such a way that its problems become practically indistinguishable from pseudo-problems, and its cant, accordingly, practically indistinguishable from meaningless babble. This, I shall try to show, is a consequence of philosophical inbreeding. The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems which arise outside philosophy—in mathematics, for example, or in cosmology, or in politics, or in religion, or in social life. In other words my first thesis is this. Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted in urgent problems outside philosophy, and they die if these roots decay. C&R p.95 His question, we now know, or believe we know, should have been: ‘How are successful conjectures possible?’ And our answer, in the spirit of his Copernican Revolution, might, I suggest, be something like this: Because, as you said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes consciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. C&R p.128 If you were to threaten us with a common household object, what would it be? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com, or on twitter: @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod.
We're joined today by Matt Bateman, one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, to discuss the Montessori method of education and how it compares to other teaching methodologies. Get ready for tiny furniture, putting on your jacket upside down, and teaching your toddler to make eggs benedict. We discuss: Maria Montessori What is a Montessori education (besides tiny furniture)? How Montessori classrooms differ from regular ones Why long periods of interrupted problem solving is important for a child's development How Montessori integrates with technology Drawbacks of traditional methods of testing and grading, and how they might be amended The importance of cultivating a love of work How Matt wants to reform high school education Bio: Matt is one of the founders of Higher Ground Education (https://www.tohigherground.com/), a worldwide Montessori network. He runs Montessorium, Higher Ground’s think tank. He holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania, where he focused on the philosophy of science. Make sure to follow him on twitter (https://twitter.com/mbateman) for some golden education nuggets References: Matt on the Where We Go Next (https://podcastaddict.com/episode/116009974) (formerly New Liberals) podcast. Montessorium (https://montessorium.com/) Vocational Training for the Soul: Bringing the Meaning of Work to Schools (https://thechalkboardreview.com/latest/vocational-training-for-the-soul-bringing-the-meaning-of-work-to-schools) Matt's History of Education Course (https://montessorium.com/courses/the-history-of-education) Social media everywhere Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Special Guest: Matt Bateman.
In what is hopefully the last installment of Vaden and Ben debate Effective Altruism, we ask if EA lies on the cultishness (yes, that's a word) spectrum. We discuss: The potential pitfall of having goodness as a core value Aspects of Effective Altruism (EA) that put it on the cultishness spectrum Does EA focus on good over truth? Ben's experience with EA Making criticism a core value How does one resist the allure of groupthink? How to (mis)behave at parties How would one create a movement which doesn't succumb to cult-like dynamics? Weird ideas as junk food Error Correction intro segment - Scott Alexander pointing out that Ivermectin works indirectly via: There’s a reason the most impressive ivermectin studies came from parts of the world where worms are prevalent, he says. Parasites suppress the immune system, making it more difficult for the human body to fight off viruses. Thus, getting rid of worm infections makes it easier for COVID-19 patients to bounce back from the virus. See full post below and summary news article here (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/everyone-was-wrong-about-ivermectin/ar-AAQRURP) Czechoslovakia was not a part of the USSR @lukeconibear pointing out some climate models and data are publicly available. See for instance Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) Chem model: https://github.com/geoschem/geos-chem Community Earth System Model (CESM): https://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM Energy Exascale Earth System model: https://github.com/E3SM-Project/E3SM @PRyan pointing out we were confused about the difference between economic growth, division of labour, and free trade Join the movement at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Follow us on twitter at @IncrementsPod (https://twitter.com/IncrementsPod) and on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ).
Come experience the thrill of the shill as we discuss the somewhat-controversial natural resource called "fossil fuels". In this episode, we drill deep into opto-pessimist Vaclav Smil's excellent book Oil: A Beginner's Guide, in what is possibly our only episode to feature heterodox Russian-Ukrainian science, subterranean sound waves, and that goop lady - what's her name? It's unbelievable, right? We discuss: The science behind fossil fuels: How they're made, found, processed, and used Energy transitions and the shale gas revolution Global oil dependence and human rights The environmental costs of fossil fuels Will we reach Peak Oil? Why natural resources aren't milkshakes The future of fossil fuels (Note to Big Oil: Please send shilling fees to incrementspodcast@gmail.com) References - Vaclav Smil: We Must Leave Growth Behind (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/vaclav-smil-on-the-need-to-abandon-growth.html) - Vaclav Smil: Growth must end. Our economist friends don’t seem to realise that (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/21/vaclav-smil-interview-growth-must-end-economists) - Oil: A Beginner's Guide (https://smile.amazon.com/Oil-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851685715?sa-no-redirect=1) - Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin) Social media everywhere Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Quotes Modern life now begins and ends amidst the plethora of plastics whose synthesis began with feedstocks derived from oil - because hospitals teem with them. Surgical gloves, flexible tubing, catheters, IV containers, sterile packaging, trays, basins, bed pans and rails, thermal blankets and lab ware: naturally, you are not aware of these surroundings when a few hours or a few days old, but most of us will become all too painfully aware of them six, seven or eight decades later. And that recital was limited only to common hospital items made of polyvinylchloride; countless other items fashioned from a huge variety of plastics are in our cars, aeroplanes, trains, homes, offices and factories. Oil: A Beginner's Guide, p.10 A free market has not been one of the hallmarks of the 150 years of oil’s commercial history. The oil business has seen repeated efforts to fix product prices by controlling either the level of crude oil extraction or by dominating its transportation and processing, or by monopolizing all of these aspects. The first infamous, and successful, attempt to do so was the establishment of Standard Oil in Cleveland in 1870. The Rockefeller brothers (John D. and William) and their partners used secretive acquisitions and deals with railroad companies to gain the control of oil markets first in Cleveland, then in the Northeast, and eventually throughout the US. By 1904 what was now known as the Standard Oil Trust controlled just over 90% of the country’s crude oil production and 85% of all sales. Oil: A Beginner's Guide, p.32 Photochemical smog was first observed in Los Angeles in the 1940s and its origins were soon traced primarily to automotive emissions. As car use progressed around the world al] major urban areas began to experience seasonal (Toronto, Paris) or near-permanent (Bangkok, Cairo) levels of smog, whose effects range from impaired health (eye irritation, lung problems) to damage to materials, crops and coniferous trees. A recent epidemiological study in California also demonstrated that the lung function of children living within 500m of a freeway was seriously impaired and that this adverse effect (independent of overall regional air quality) could result in significant lung capacity deficits later in life. Extreme smog levels now experienced in Beijing, New Delhi and other major Chinese and Indian cities arise from the combination of automotive traffic and large-scale combustion of coal in electricity-generating plants and are made worse by periodic temperature inversions that limit the depth of the mixing layer and keep the pollutants near the ground. Oil: A Beginner's Guide, p.50
In this episode Ben convinces Vaden to become a degrowther. We plan how to live out the rest of our lives on an organic tomato farm in Canada in December, sewing our own clothes and waxing our own candles. Step away from the thermostat Jimmy. We discuss: - The degrowth movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth) - The basics of economic growth, and why it's good for developing economies in particular - How growth enables resilience in the face of environmental disasters - Why the environment is in better shape than you think - Availability bias and our tendency to think everything is falling apart - The decoupling of economic growth and carbon emissions - Energy dense production and energy portfolios And we respond to some of your criticism of the previous episode, including: Apocalyptic environmental predictions been happening for a while? Really? Number of annual cold deaths exceed the number of annual heat deaths? Really? Your previous episode was very human-centric, and failed to address the damage humans are causing to the environment. What say you? Are we right wing crypto-fascists? (Answer: Maybe, successfully dodged the question) Social media everywhere Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM one of us on twitter, or send an email to incrementspodcast@gmail.com to get a link References Two natural experiments on curtailing economic growth. Energy Crunch (https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/energy-crunch-hits-global-recovery-as-winter-approaches-report-121102000021_1.html), and the effect of Covid-19 on developing countries (world bank) (https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/799701589552654684/pdf/Costs-and-Trade-Offs-in-the-Fight-Against-the-COVID-19-Pandemic-A-Developing-Country-Perspective.pdf) 10x more cold deaths than heat deaths. Original study (https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1636434110138000&usg=AOvVaw0Uas83UjktfZhIqzNOyMTQ) in the Lancet. Chilling Effect (https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/chilling-effects?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDgwNTU5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0MjYwOTE3NCwiXyI6InVqQ3VpIiwiaWF0IjoxNjM0Nzg2MDY1LCJleHAiOjE2MzQ3ODk2NjUsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04OTEyMCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.oIH0tvBYkHK5PfbmmqLdNVO0-U46kRy54CSjZlEC0ec) by Scott Alexander. Decoupling of economic growth and pollution (https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/absolute-decoupling-of-economic-growth-and-emissions-in-32-countries) by Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough institute. Air Pollution Trends data (EPA) (https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data) Number of deaths from natural disasters (https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters) (Our World in Data). Original data taken from the EMDAT Natural Disasters database (https://www.emdat.be/). Increase in global canopy cover (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9) 99 Good News Stories in 2018 you probably didn't hear about (https://medium.com/future-crunch/99-good-news-stories-you-probably-didnt-hear-about-in-2018-cc3c65f8ebd0) ...and 2019 (https://futurecrun.ch/99-good-news-2019) ...and 2020 (https://futurecrun.ch/99-good-news-2020) (also sign up for the FutureCrunch newsletter!) The Environmental Kuznets curves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve) Quotes On Degrowth This would be a way of life based on modest material and energy needs but nevertheless rich in other dimensions – a life of frugal abundance. It is about creating an economy based on sufficiency, knowing how much is enough to live well, and discovering that enough is plenty. In a degrowth society we would aspire to localise our economies as far and as appropriately as possible. This would assist with reducing carbon-intensive global trade, while also building resilience in the face of an uncertain and turbulent future. Wherever possible, we would grow our own organic food, water our gardens with water tanks, and turn our neighbourhoods into edible landscapes as the Cubans have done in Havana. As my friend Adam Grubb so delightfully declares, we should “eat the suburbs”, while supplementing urban agriculture with food from local farmers’ markets. - Samuel Alexander, Life in a 'degrowth' economy, and why you might actually enjoy it (https://theconversation.com/life-in-a-degrowth-economy-and-why-you-might-actually-enjoy-it-32224) It would be nice to hear it straight for once. Global warming is real, it’s here, and it’s mind-bogglingly dangerous. How bad it gets—literally, the degree—depends on how quickly the most profligate countries rein in their emissions. Averting catastrophe will thus require places like the United States and Canada to make drastic cutbacks, bringing their consumption more closely in line with the planetary average. Such cuts can be made more or less fairly, and the richest really ought to pay the most, but the crucial thing is that they are made. Because, above all, stopping climate change means giving up on growth. That will be hard. Not only will our standards of living almost certainly drop, but it’s likely that the very quality of our society—equality, safety, and trust—will decline, too. That’s not something to be giddy about, but it’s still a price that those of us living in affluent countries should prepare to pay. Because however difficult it is to slow down, flooding Bangladesh cannot be an option. In other words, we can and should act. It’s just going to hurt. - Daniel Immerwahr, Growth vs the Climate (https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/growth-vs-the-climate) On Perennial Apocalypticism My offices were so cold I couldn't concentrate, and my staff were typing with gloves on. I pleaded with Jimmy to set the thermostats at 68 degrees, but it didn't do any good. - Paul Sabin, quoting Rosalynn Carter in The Bet (https://books.google.com/books?id=nVd_AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) Mostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the United Nations environmental program, told delegates that if the nations of the world continued their present policies, they would face by the turn of the century ''an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.'' - New York Times, 1982 (https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/world/un-ecology-parley-opens-amid-gloom.html) A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees", threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control." - AP News, 1989 (https://web.archive.org/web/20201113001053/https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0) On Environmental Conservation It’s not the case that humankind has failed to conserve habitat. By 2019, an area of Earth larger than the whole of Africa was protected, an area that is equivalent to 15 percent of Earth’s land surface. The number of designated protected areas in the world has grown from 9,214 in 1962 to 102,102 in 2003 to 244,869 in 2020. - Michael Shellenburger, Apocalypse Never, p.75 Thanks to habitat protection and targeted conservation efforts, many beloved species have been pulled from the brink of extinction, including albatrosses, condors, manatees, oryxes, pandas, rhinoceroses, Tasmanian devils, and tigers; according to the ecologist Stuart Pimm, the overall rate of extinctions has been reduced by 75 percent. - Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now, p.160 On Environmental Optimism Following China’s ban on ivory last year, 90% of Chinese support it, ivory demand has dropped by almost half, and poaching rates are falling (https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/conservation/china-has-banned-ivory-but-has-the-african-elephant-poaching-crisis-actually-been-stemmed/news-story/b086f6a0e61acfcc15abeed18f899136) in places like Kenya. WWF (https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/what-impact-chinas-ivory-ban) The population of wild tigers in Nepal was found to have nearly doubled in the last nine years, thanks to efforts by conservationists and increased funding for protected areas. Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/tigers-nepal-double-wwf-conservation-big-cats-wildlife-trade-a8551271.html) Deforestation in Indonesia fell by 60%, as a result of a ban on clearing peatlands, new educational campaigns and better law enforcement. Ecowatch (https://www.ecowatch.com/indonesia-deforestation-2595918463.html) See the remaining 294 good news stories here (https://medium.com/future-crunch/99-good-news-stories-you-probably-didnt-hear-about-in-2018-cc3c65f8ebd0), here (https://futurecrun.ch/99-good-news-2019), and here (https://futurecrun.ch/99-good-news-2020) Set your thermostats to 68, put those gloves on, and send an email over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Galileo vs the church - whose side are you on? Today we discuss Chapter 3 of Conjectures and Refutations, Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge. This is a juicy one, as Popper manages to simultaneously attack both philosophers and physicists, as he takes on instrumentalism and essentialism, two alternatives to his 'conjecture and refutation' approach to knowledge. We discuss: The conflict between Galileo and the church What is instrumentalism, and how did it become popular? How instrumentalism is still in vogue in many physics departments The Problem of Universals The essentialist approach to science Stars, air, cells, and lightning "What is" vs "How does" questions The relationship between essentialism and language, and its influence on politics. Viewing words as instruments See More: - Instrumentalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism - Essentialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism - The problem of universals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problemofuniversals Quotes: Few if any of the physicists who have now accepted the instrumentalist view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley realize that they have accepted a philosophical theory. Nor do they realize that they have broken with the Galilean tradition. On the contrary, most of them think that they have kept clear of philosophy; and most of them no longer care anyway. What they now care about, as physicists, is (a) mastery of the mathematical formalism, i.e. of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care for nothing else. -- C&R, Page 134 Thus my criticism of essentialism does not aim at establishing the non-existence of essences; it merely aims at showing the obscurantist character of the role played by the idea of essences in the Galilean philosophy of science (down to Maxwell, who was inclined to believe in them but whose work destroyed this belief). In other words my criticism tries to show that, whether essences exist or not, the belief in them does not help us in any way and indeed is likely to hamper us; so that there is no reason why the scientist should assume their existence. -- C&R, Page 141. But they are more than this, as can be seen from the fact that we submit them to severe tests by trying to deduce from them some of the regularities of the known world of common experience i.e. by trying to explain these regularities. And these attempts to explain the known by the unknown (as I have described them elsewhere) have immeasurably extended the realm of the known. They have added to the facts of our everyday world the invisible air, the antipodes, the circulation of the blood, the worlds of the telescope and the microscope, of electricity, and of tracer atoms showing us in detail the movements of matter within living bodies. All these things are far from being mere instruments: they are witness to the intellectual conquest of our world by our minds. But there is another way of looking at these matters. For some, science is still nothing but glorified plumbing, glorified gadgetmaking—‘mechanics’; very useful, but a danger to true culture, threatening us with the domination of the near-illiterate (of Shakespeare’s ‘mechanicals’). It should never be mentioned in the same breath as literature or the arts or philosophy. Its professed discoveries are mere mechanical inventions, its theories are instruments—gadgets again, or perhaps super-gadgets. It cannot and does not reveal to us new worlds behind our everyday world of appearance; for the physical world is just surface: it has no depth. The world is just what it appears to be. Only the scientific theories are not what they appear to be. A scientific theory neither explains nor describes the world; it is nothing but an instrument. -- C&R, Page 137-8. What's the essential nature of this podcast? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
After the immensely positive response to our previous episode on the Weinstein brothers - thanks @robertwiblin! - we thought we would keep giving the people what they want, and what they want is a long discussion on climate change. Specifically, the subject for today is: "The State of the Climate Debate". We touch on: The near perfect partisan split on climate change Will there be a climate apocalypse? The promise of nuclear energy as a solution The limitations of renewables Energy portfolios The rebound effect Degrowth economics Activist tactics and fear mongering Whether The Environment has become A Deity in environmentalist circles We expect very little pushback on this episode. References Apocalypse Never (https://smile.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691?sa-no-redirect=1) by Michael Shellenberger. Greta Thunberg encouraging you to panic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjsLm5PCdVQ&ab_channel=GuardianNews) Thunberg's double crossing of the Atlantic in sailboat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_Greta_Thunberg) The Rebound Effect (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277338331_The_rebound_effects_of_switching_to_vegetarianism_A_microeconomic_analysis_of_Swedish_consumption_behavior) Quotes But real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users. -- Naomi Klein in the Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/capitalism-vs-climate/) Even if nuclear power were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign, it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into. -- Amory Lovins, quoted from Forbes piece (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/14/the-real-reason-they-hate-nuclear-is-because-it-means-we-dont-need-renewables/?sh=17c63299128f) by Michael Shellenberger Send us panic-induced email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Today we take your twitter questions before doing a deep dive into the Weinstein fiasco (Bret and Eric, not Harvey.) If you haven't heard of the Weinstein's before, then we suggest you run away before we drag you down into a rabbit hole filled with acronyms, anti-vaxxers, and theories of ... everything? anything? literally anything at all? Topics we touch: - We take your twitter questions! - Filos with a weird one: (https://twitter.com/iamFilos/status/1424025239370047488) I have a weird one that could be fun. It seems to me that the idea that we could upload our minds to a computer is nonsense. I agree with Kastrup that what we would upload is a description of our minds and a description of something is not that something. And it seems this desire to immortality is the nerd's reinvention of God via AGI, and heaven via uploading a mind to a silicon substrate. Where do you fall in this mind uploading fantasy? possible? Religious impulse? Reasonable? - Dan would like us to talk about: (https://twitter.com/danieljhageman/status/1424008345309126660) The pervasive skepticism that seems to run through much the Popperian and Crit Rat communities regarding nonhuman animals’ capacity to suffer, particularly factory farmed animals. - Karl is interested in: (https://twitter.com/krlwlzn/status/1424025137481912330) I'm interested in the meta-question of why that issue seems to split the community in two. Why hasn't one view become the dogmatic truth yet as it seems to have in most other communities? - WTF is up with Bret and Eric Weinstein - The allure of reflexive contrarianism - The (horrible! awful! stop it!) tendency of academics to use convoluted language to impress their non-peers - The notion of "secular gurus" and what distinguishes a secular guru from a person with a large platform - And the special responsibility of researchers to communicate clearly. References: Animal Suffering - Bruce Nielson's blog post (https://fourstrands.org/2021/04/15/do-animals-experience-qualia/) on whether animals experience qualia, and his second (https://fourstrands.org/2021/06/08/the-current-science-of-animal-emotions/) on animal emotions. We mostly discuss the first. Weinsteins - Eric Weinstein's excellent first appearance (https://samharris.org/podcasts/faith-in-reason/) on Sam Harris's podcast - Geometric Unity website (https://geometricunity.org/) - Geometric Unity pdf (https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric_Unity-Draft-April-1st-2021.pdf) - See Timothy Nguyen on the Wright Show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j86WIfRfPDk&ab_channel=Bloggingheads.tv) and Decoding the Gurus (https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-episode-interview-with-tim-nguyen-on-geometric-unity) for an excellent overview of the whole scandal - ... and check out Timothy Nguyen on Eigenbros (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o31cGMENDTI&ab_channel=Eigenbros) for a deep dive into the technical nitty-gritty - Norbert Blum's original paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03486v1.pdf) purporting to show that P is not equal to NP. - A nice answer (https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38803/is-norbert-blums-2017-proof-that-p-ne-np-correct) on Stack Exchange detailing why Blum's proof was wrong. Quotes: Every intellectual has a very special responsibility. He has the privilege and the opportunity of studying. In return, he owes it to his fellow men (or 'to society') to represent the results of his study as simply, clearly and modestly as he can. The worst thing that intellectuals can do - the cardinal sin - is to try to set themselves up as great prophets vis-à-vis their fellow men and to impress them with puzzling philosophies. Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he can do so. Karl Popper, Against Big Words (http://www.the-rathouse.com/shortreviews/Against_Big_Words.pdf) What would you say to your half million twitter followers who want to know your opinion on everything? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Christofer Lövgren, host of the marvelous Do Explain (https://www.doexplain.org/) podcast and world's most famous Swede (second perhaps only to that Alfred fellow with the peace prize), joins us on the pod to teach us how podcasting is really done. And how to pronounce his last name. When we're not all sobbing, we touch on: Does Deutschian epistemology give us with Free Will? Should one identify as a critical rationalist? Does membership in a community, or identification with a label, affect our ability to give and receive criticism? How has reading Deutsch and Popper changed our lives? Can trauma get stored in the body? How often do we cry? Check out Chris on twitter (@ReachChristofer) and Do Subscribe to Do Explain (https://www.doexplain.org/). References: The Beginning of Infinity (https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Infinity-Explanations-Transform-World/dp/0143121359?sa-no-redirect=1&pldnSite=1) by David Deutsch Behave (https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078?sa-no-redirect=1&pldnSite=1) by Robert Sapolsky Lecture on Depression (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc&ab_channel=Stanford) by Sapolsky Do Explain episode (https://www.doexplain.org/episodes/24-emotional-processing-with-matt-goldenberg) with Chris and Matt Goldenberg on emotional processing Temple Grandin discussing (https://www.lakeforest.edu/news/still-thinking-in-pictures-a-conversation-with-temple-grandin) the "black-hat" horse. Body Keeps the Score (https://www.amazon.com/Body-Keeps-Score-Healing-Trauma/dp/0143127748?sa-no-redirect=1&pldnSite=1) by Bessel van der Kolk Sir Peter Brian Medawar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Medawar) whom Richard Dawkins referred to as 'the wittiest of all scientific writers'. Blow your nose, dry your eyes, and send us a tear-stained email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Christofer Lövgren.
We're back! Apologies for the delay, but Vaden got married and Ben was summoned to be an astronaut on the next billionaire's vacation to Venus. This week we're talking about how to forecast the future (with this one simple and easy trick! Astrologers hate them!). Specifically, we're diving into Philip Tetlock's work on Superforecasting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforecasting:_The_Art_and_Science_of_Prediction). So what's the deal? Is it possible to "harness the wisdom of the crowd to forecast world events" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Judgment_Project)? Or is the whole thing just a result of sloppy statistics? We believe the latter is likely to be true with probability 64.9% - no, wait, 66.1%. Intro segment: "The Sentience Debate": The moral value of shrimps, insects, and oysters (https://www.facebook.com/103405457813911/videos/254164216090604) Relevant timestamps: 10:05: "Even if there's only a one in one hundred chance, or one in one thousand chance, that insects are sentient given current information, and if we're killing trillions or quadrillions of insects in ways that are preventable or avoidable or that we can in various ways mitigate that harm... then we should consider that possibility." 25:47: "If you're all going to work on pain in invertebrates, I pity you in many respects... In my previous work, I was used to running experiments and getting a clear answer, and I could say what these animals do and what they don't do. But when I started to think about what they might be feeling, you meet this frustration, that after maybe about 15 years of research, if someone asks me do they feel pain, my answer is 'maybe'... a strong 'maybe'... you cannot discount the possibility." 46:47: "It is not 100% clear to me that plants are non sentient. I do think that animals including insects are much more likely to be sentient than plants are, but I would not have a credence of zero that plants are sentient." 1:01:59: "So the hard problem I would like to ask the panel is: If you were to compare the moral weight of one ant to the moral weight of one human, what ratio would you put? How much more is a human worth than an ant? 100:1? 1000:1? 10:1? Or maybe 1:1? ... Let's start with Jamie." Main References: Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforecasting:_The_Art_and_Science_of_Prediction) How Policymakers Can Improve Crisis Planning (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-10-13/better-crystal-ball) The Good Judgment Project - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Judgment_Project) Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?: Tetlock, Philip E.: 9780691128719: Books - Amazon.ca (https://www.amazon.ca/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/dp/0691128715) Additional references mentioned in the episode: The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Drunkard%27s_Walk) The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_the_Highly_Improbable) Book Review: Superforecasting | Slate Star Codex (https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/04/book-review-superforecasting/) Pandemic Uncovers the Limitations of Superforecasting – We Are Not Saved (https://wearenotsaved.com/2020/04/18/pandemic-uncovers-the-ridiculousness-of-superforecasting/) My Final Case Against Superforecasting (with criticisms considered, objections noted, and assumptions buttressed) – We Are Not Saved (https://wearenotsaved.com/2020/05/30/my-final-case-against-superforecasting-with-criticisms-considered-objections-noted-and-assumptions-buttressed/) Use your Good Judgement and send us email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Why do logic and mathematics work so well in the world? Why do they seem to describe reality? Why do they they enable us to design circuit boards, build airplanes, and listen remotely to handsome and charming podcast hosts who rarely go off topic? To answer these questions, we dive into Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?. But before we get to that, we touch on some of the good stuff: evolutionary psychology, cunnilingus, and why Robin is better than Batman. References: - Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 9: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality? https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbsgesummaryr&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false - Ben on Do Explain with Christofer Lovgren (https://www.doexplain.org/episodes/311-nonuniversal-explainers-with-ben-chugg) - Debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8&ab_channel=HarvardUniversity) between Spelke and Pinker - Very Bad Wizards discussing the paper "Oral Sex as Infidelity detection" (episode (https://www.verybadwizards.com/216), paper (https://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Pham-Shackelford-PAID-2013.pdf)). - Sturgeon's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27slaw#:~:text=Sturgeon%27s%20law%20(or%20Sturgeon%27s%20revelation,science%20fiction%20author%20and%20critic. - Eugene Wigner's paper (https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf) The Unreasonable Effective of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. - Stoic versus Aristotelian logic. Here (https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/196Stoicism/notes/StoicLogic.html) is a nice discussion of the differences between the two. - Rob Wiblin's tweet (https://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1345800502093766657) that all probabilities are subjective probabilities (in an otherwise very good thread). - Buhler's three functions of language: (i) Expressive, (ii) Signaling, and (iii) Descriptive. See the "Organon Model" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organon_model#:~:text=B%C3%BChler's%20work%20influenced%20Roman%20Jakobson,the%20representation%20function%20(Darstellungsfunktion)). - Piece (https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/06/youre-probably-not-galileo-scientific-advance-rarely-comes-from-lone-contrarian-outsiders/) on Brett Weinstein and Ivermectin. Quotes: “The indescribable world I have in mind is, of course, the world I have ‘in my mind’—the world which most psychologists (except the behaviourists) attempt to describe, somewhat unsuccessfully, with the help of what is nothing but a host of metaphors taken from the languages of physics, of biology, and of social life.” “In so far as a calculus is applied to reality, it loses the character of a logical calculus and becomes a descriptive theory which may be empirically refutable; and in so far as it is treated as irrefutable, i.e. as a system of logically true formulae, rather than a descriptive scientific theory, it is not applied to reality.” Send us the most bizarre use of evolutionary psychology you've seen at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
There are many overused internet keywords that could be associated with this conversation, but none of them quite seem right. So here's a poem instead: The Ogre does what ogres can, Deeds quite impossible for Man, But one prize is beyond his reach: The Ogre cannot master speech. About a subjugated plain, Among its desperate and slain, The Ogre stalks with hands on hips, While drivel gushes from his lips - August 1968, W H Auden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBG68YkOQOg) Send us an email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com Image from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-august-1968-red-square-protest-and-its-legacy Audio updated: 05/07/2021
In a rare turn of events, it just so happened that one or perhaps both of your charming co-hosts spewed a bit of nonsense about Derek Parfit in a previous episode, and we had to bring in a heavy hitter to sort us out. Today we're joined by friend of the podcast Mr. Dan Hageman, immuno-oncologist by day and aspiring ethicist by night, who gently takes us to task for misunderstanding Parfit and the role of ethical theorizing, and for ignoring the suffering of pigeons. The critiques land, and convince Vaden that we should dedicate our resources towards providing safe and affordable contraception for Apex predators. We cover all sorts of ground in this episode, including: - Mistakes we made in our thought experiments episode - Is it possible to over-theorize? - Wild animal suffering - Don't fish eat other fish?! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xHMyvtUbhM&ab_channel=moviequotescentral) - Feline family planning - Antinatalism - Moral Cluelessness - Population ethics and the repugnant conclusion (Ha!) - Similarities and differences between theoretical physics and theoretical philosophy References: - Organization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (https://www.preventsuffering.org/#:~:text=The%20Organisation%20for%20the%20Prevention,suffering%20of%20all%20sentient%20beings.) (OPIS) - Lukas Gloor's post (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/HyeTgKBv7DjZYjcQT/the-problem-with-person-affecting-views) on population ethics - Wild Animal Initiative (https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/) - Pigeon Contraception (https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/pigeon-contraception) (yes, really) - Hilary Greaves on moral cluelessness (talk+transcript (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LdZcit8zX89rofZf3/evidence-cluelessness-and-the-long-term-hilary-greaves), paper (https://philpapers.org/rec/GREC-38)) - Better Never to Have Been (https://smile.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265?sa-no-redirect=1) by David Benatar. Dan Hageman is a biomed engineer who works in immuno-oncology, but in his not-so-free time strives to sell himself as an amateur philosopher and aspiring 'Effective Altruist'. He spends much of this time trying to keep up with impactful charities focused on the reduction and/or prevention of extreme suffering, and in 2020 helped co-found a hopefully burgeoning side project called ‘Match for More (https://www.matchformore.org/)’. He would like to note that the IPAs are to blame for any and all errors/misapprehensions made during his lively discussion with epic friends and podcast hosts, Ben and Vaden. How many insect lives are morally equivalent to one human life? Send us your best guess at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. We'll reveal the correct answer in episode 1000. Update 13/06/21: The original title of this episode was "Meta-ethics Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)" Special Guest: Dan Hageman.
We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore How mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences Counterfactual reasoning in mathematics Intra versus extra mathematical explanation Alternate logics Mathematical thought experiments The use of probability in the courtroom References: - The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences (https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf) by Eugene Wigner. - Proofs and Refutations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#:~:text=Proofs%20and%20Refutations%3A%20The%20Logic,characteristic%20defined%20for%20the%20polyhedron.) by Imre Lakatos. Mark Colyvan (http://www.colyvan.com/) is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012). Special Guest: Mark Colyvan.
This episode begins with a big announcement! Ben has officially become a cat person, and is now Taking Cats Seriously. Vaden follows up with some news of his own, before diving into the main subject for today's episode - Popper's Three Worlds.
In this episode we discuss:
- The TCS parenting movement
- Chesto's tweet to Deutsch
- How Popper's Three Worlds differs from Deutsch's Things/Qualia/Abstractions classification
- Would prime numbers exist if humans didn't exist?
- What constitutes reality?
- The existence of non-physical entities and the reality of abstractions
Having a quick glance at the following wikipedia pages will help ground the conversation:
- Formal systems
- Formal languages
- Modular Arithmetic
- Rules of inference
- Alternative Logics
Errata:
- Somewhere Vaden says English is a formal language. Nope definitely not - English is natural language, which is distinct from a formal language.
Send us your best guess for whether or not we're real at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
We are joined by the great Sam Kuypers for a conversation on physics, philosophy, and free will.
Vaden spends most of the episode preparing for a huge debate on free-will, and Ben spends it worried about what alternate versions of himself are up to in parallel universes. Still, we manage to touch on a few topics:
- Realism and antirealist interpretations of quantum theory
- The advisory styles of Dennis Sciama and John Wheeler and the standardization of education
- Reconciling the Harris / Deutsch perspectives on Free Will
- Restorative and Rehabilitative justice
- A universe in which Ben spontaneously explodes into dust while speaking
Links:
- Sam's recent paper with David Deutsch
- From Micro to Macro, by Vlatko Vedral
- Hayek's Constitution of Liberty
Sam Kuypers is a DPhil student at the University of Oxford, where he researches foundational issues in quantum theory. He's also one of the founders of the Oxford Karl Popper Society, an Oxford-based student society created to facilitate discussions about science and philosophy.
Follow him on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/crit_rat.
Send us an email or explode into dust - your choice: incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Special Guest: Sam Kuypers.
In this episode, we discuss Peter Singer's famous drowning child thought experiment, the role of moral theories, and the role of thought experiments in moral reasoning. From our perspectives, the conversation went something like this:
Ben's POV: Bravely and boldly trying to think through problems, Ben puts forward a stunningly insightful theory about the role of moral argumentation. Vaden, jealous of the profundity of Ben's message, tries to disagree but can't.
Vaden's POV: What the eff is Ben talking about? I disagree. No wait nvm I agree. Let's change the subject.
References in intro segment:
- Talk by Joseph Agassi
- Robert Sapolsky's book Behave
- Milgram experiments
- Stanford Prison Experiments (see also: Radio Lab's The Bad Show)
References in main segment:
- Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer
- The Organization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS)
- Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit
- Galileo's thought experiment: Parts of Falling Objects
- Einstein's thought experiments
Put on a suit and drown a child before sending your best moral theory to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
After a long digression, we finally return to the Conjectures and Refutations series. In this episode we cover Chapter 1: Science: Conjectures and Refutations. In particular, we focus on one of the trickiest Popperian concepts to wrap one's head around - the problem of induction.
References:
- Wiki on scientific laws
- Hume's dialogues concerning natural religion
- Proof of the impossibility of probability induction
- One of the YouTube videos on induction.
And in case you were wondering what happened to the two unfalsifiable theories Popper attacks in this chapter, you'll be pleased to know that they have merged into a super theory. We give you Psychoanalytic-Marxism: http://oldsite.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/janmohamed/Psychoanalytic-Marxism.pdf.
Sent us your favorite unfalsifiable theory at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
audio updated: 29/08/2021
Hello and sorry for the delay! We finally got together with Fin and Luca from the excellent HearThisIdea podcast for a nice roundtable discussion on longtermism. We laughed, we cried, we tried our best to communicate across the divide.
Material referenced in the discussion:
- 80k Hours Problem Profiles
- Jon Hamm imprisons us in an Alexa
- The Case for Strong Longtermism
- A Case Against Strong Longtermism
- Nick Bostrom's seminal paper on existential risks
Quote: "[Events like Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. ] have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. (italics added)"
- Nick Bostrom's "A survey of expert opinion" (errata: Vaden incorrectly said this paper was coauthored by Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord. It's actually authored by Vincent C. Müller and Nick Bostrom - Toby Ord and Anders Sandberg are acknowledged on page 15 for having helped design the questionnaire.)
Send us a survey of expert credences over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Special Guests: Fin Moorhouse and Luca Righetti.
Back in the ring for round two on longtermism! We (Ben somewhat drunkenly) respond to some of the criticism of episode #17 and our two essays (Ben's, Vaden's) We touch on:
- Ben's hate mail from his piece on cliodynamics
- Longtermism as implying altruistic portfolio shuffling
- What on earth is Bayesian epistemology
- The Pasadena game
- Authoritarianism and the danger of seeking perfection
- Arrow's theorem
- Alternative decision theories focusing on error correction
- What's the probability of nuclear war before 2100?
- When are models reliable
- What problems to work on
You will, dear listener, be either pleased or horrified to learn that this will not be our last foray into longtermism. It's like choose your own adventure ... except we're choosing the adventure, and the adventure is longtermism. Next stop is the Hear this Idea podcast!
Send us best longterm prediction at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Bit of a personal episode this one is! Ben learns how to be a twitter warrior while Vaden has a full-on breakdown during quarantine. Who knew work addiction was actually a real thing? And that there are 12 step programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workaholics_Anonymous) for people who identify as being "powerless over compulsive work, worry, or activity"? And that mathematics can create compulsive behavior indistinguishable from drug addiction? Vaden does, now. People mentioned in this episode: - Andrew Wiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles) (look at his face! the face of an addict!) - Grigori Perelman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman) - Terry Tao's (https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/dont-prematurely-obsess-on-a-single-big-problem-or-big-theory/) blog post ("There is a particularly dangerous occupational hazard in this subject: one can become focused, to the exclusion of other mathematical activity (and in extreme cases, on non-mathematical activity also) on a single really difficult problem in a field (or on some grand unifying theory) before one is really ready (both in terms of mathematical preparation, and also in terms of one’s career) to devote so much of one’s research time to such a project. " - italics added) Work slavishly without sleeping or eating to send email over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Well, there's no avoiding controversy with this one. We explain, examine, and attempt to refute the shiny new moral philosophy of longtermism. Our critique focuses on The Case for Strong Longtermismby Hilary Greaves and Will MacAskill.
We say so in the episode, but it's important to emphasize that we harbour no animosity towards anyone in the effective altruism community. However, we both think that longtermism is pretty f***ing scary and do our best to communicate why.
Confused as to why there's no charming, witty, and hilarious intro? Us too. Somehow, Ben managed to corrupt his audio. Classic. Oh well, some of you tell us you dislike the intros anyway.
References
- The Case for Strong Longtermism, by Greaves and MacAskill
- Vaden's EA forum post on longtermism
- The reddit discussion surrounding Vaden's piece
- Ben's piece on longtermism (which he has hidden in the depths of Medium because he's scared of the EA forum)
- Ben on Pascal's Mugging and Expected Values
- Gwern and Robin Hanson making fun of Ben's piece
Yell at us on the EA forum, on Reddit, on Medium, or over email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Vaden comes battle-hardened and ready to debate and is met with ... a big soft hug from Ben. Ben repents his apocalyptic sins and admits that Vaden changed his mind. Again. God dammit this is getting annoying. To his credit, Vaden only gloats for 10 minutes. Eventually we touch on some other topics:
- technology as filling niches
- when is outrage appropriate?
- the upsides of social media
- conversation as a substitute for violence
Much love to everyone and stay safe out there! Send us some feedback at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Alright spiders, point this at your brain. Ben and Vaden do a deep dive into the recent Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma and have a genuine debate, just like the good ol' days. Topics touched:
- Why Vaden dislikes documentaries, and this one in particular
- Is reliance on social media a problem?
- The advertisement model
- The relationship between social media and mental health
- ... and political polarization
- ... and outrage in general
- Epistemological erosion
- Wars of words and swords
Outraged? Polarized? Radicalized, even? We want to hear about it at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Quotes referenced in episode:
"This point being crossed is at the root of addiction, polarization, radicalization, outrageification, vanityification, the entire thing. This is overpowering human nature, and this is checkmate on humanity."
- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma
"If we go down the current status quo for, let's say, another 20 years... we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance. We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We probably degrade the world's democracies so that they fall into some sort of bizarre autocratic dysfunction. We probably ruin the global economy. Uh, we probably, um, don't survive. You know, I... I really do view it as existential."
- Jaron Lanier, The Social Dilemma
"We're pointing these engines of AI back at ourselves to reverse-engineer what elicits responses from us. Almost like you're stimulating nerve cells on a spider to see what causes its legs to respond. So, it really is this kind of prison experiment where we're just, you know, roping people into the matrix, and we're just harvesting all this money and... and data from all their activity to profit from."
- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma"Although I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words."
- Karl Popper, The Myth Of The Framework
References:
- Welcome to the Cult Factory (Tristan Harris's latest appearance on Making Sense)
- Michael Moore’s 13 Rules for Making Documentary Films
- How to assess a documentary
- Twitter Study showing only 1% of users are polarized, and the rest moderate
- Literature review of social media use and mental health by Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge. Conclusion? It's complicated.
- Study showing self reports of time spent on social media are not reliable. This is relevant because most studies showing a link between social media use and deteriorating mental health rely on self reports.
- Not Born Yesterday by Hugo Mercier
Errata:
Vaden keeps saying "Jared Lanier" when it should be "Jaron Lanier". Oops!
The third in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 16: Prediction And Prophecy in the Social Sciences. There's a bit more Hitler stuff in this one than usual (retweets ≠ endorsements), but only because he provides a clear example of the motherlode of all bad ideas - historicism. We discuss:
- What historicism is and why it sucks
- Prediction vs prophecy
- Differences between the physical sciences and social sciences
- The success of prediction in the physical sciences
- The role of the social sciences
- What are laws of nature?
Plus a little easter egg! As always send us a little sumptin' sumptin' at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Quotes:
"In memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny."
- Epigraph of The Poverty of Historicism
"It was not by mere chance that the first forms of civilisation arose where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated them and forced them to obey his command. The members of the inferior race became the first mechanical tools in the service of a growing civilisation. Thereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had to follow.
As a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical powers into organised channels under his own leadership, forcing them to follow his will and purpose.
By imposing on them a useful, though hard, manner of employing their powers, he not only spared the lives of those whom he had conquered, but probably made their lives easier than they had been in the former state of so-called 'freedom.'" (italics added)
- Mein Kampf (The Stalag Edition), Chapter XI: Nation and Race“But it is clear that the adoption of the conspiracy theory can hardly be avoided by those who believe that they know how to make heaven on earth. The only explanation for their failure to produce this heaven is the malevolence of the devil who has a vested interest in hell.”
- Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 16: Prediction and Prophecy in the Social Sciences
Stephen is back for round two! In this episode we learn that Vaden wants to live in a panopticon and Ben in a high tech surveillance state. Also, we're all going to use Bing from now on.
Stephen Caines is a research fellow at Stanford law school's CodeX centre for legal informatics, where he specializes in the domestic use of facial recognition technology. He received a J.D. from the University of Miami with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology.Bring on da feedback at incrementspodcast@gmail.com; we check it at least once a month ...
Special Guest: Stephen Caines.
In the lead up to the American presidential election, one of the largest and most consequential expressions of public opinion, Ben and Vaden do what they always do and ask: "What does Popper say about this?" The second in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 17: Public Opinion and Liberal Principles. Largely irrelevant and probably unhelpful, we touch
- A thesis that the far left and right are converging vis-a-vis reactionary politics
- The idea that "truth is manifest", i.e. obvious
- The role of free speech and diversity of opinion
- Political polarization
- Libertarians and their hate of seatbelts
Send us some hate or some love at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Chapter excerpt:
The following remarks were designed to provide material for debate at an international conference of liberals (...). My purpose was simply to lay the foundations for a good general discussion. Because I could assume liberal views in my audience I was largely concerned to challenge, rather than endorse, popular assumptions favourable to these views.
Vaden's arguments against Bayesian philosophy and existential risk are examined by someone who might actually know what they're talking about, i.e., not Ben. After writing a critique of our conversation in Episode 7, which started off a series of blog posts, our good friend Mauricio (who studies political science, economics, and philosophy) kindly agrees to come on the podcast and try to figure out who's more confused. Does Vaden convert?
We apologize for the long wait between this episode and the last one. It was all Vaden's fault.
Hit us up at incrementspodcast@gmail.com!
*Note from Vaden: Upon relistening, I've just learned my new computer chair clicks in the most annoying possible way every time I get enthusiastic. My apologies - I'll work on being less enthusiastic in future episodes.
Second note from Vaden: Yeesh lots of audio issues with this episode - I replaced the file with a cleaned up version at 5:30pm September 17th. Still learning...*
Traditions, what are you good for? Absolutely nothing? In this episode of Increments, Ben and Vaden begin their series on Conjectures and Refutations by looking at the role tradition plays in society, and examine one tradition in particular - the critical tradition. No monkeys were harmed in the making of this episode.
References:
- C&R, Chapter 4: Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition
Podcast shoutout:-Jennifer Doleac and Rob Wiblin on policing, law and incarceration
- James Foreman Jr. on the US criminal legal system
audio updated 26/12/2020
The talented Stephen Caines punctures the cloud of confusion that is Ben and Vaden's conception of facial recognition technology. We talk about the development and usage of facial recognition in the private and public spheres, the dangers and merits of the technology, and Vaden's plan to use it a bars. For God's sake don't give that man a GPU.
Stephen is a legal technologist with a passion for access to justice. He is a 2019 graduate of the University of Miami School of Law with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology. While in law school, his work focused on public interest, legal aid organizations, and non-profits. He was a 2018 Access to Justice Technology Fellow and has worked with the Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. on a variety of technology initiatives aimed at optimizing their operations. Additionally, he worked on the legislative and technology policy team of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Stephen’s current work focuses on developing standards and best practices for the safe and ethical implementation of technology in the public sector.
References:
- Stephen's website.
- Perpetual Lineup Project (out of Georgetown)
- Stephen on the Our Data podcast
- IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft put moratoria on some aspects of their FRT technology.
- Clearview AI
Special Guest: Stephen Caines.
On the same page at last! Ben comes to the philosophical confessional to announce his probabilistic sins. The Bayesians will be pissed (with high probability). At least Vaden doesn't make him kiss anything. After too much agreement and self-congratulation, Ben and Vaden conclude the mini-series on the philosophy of probability, and "announce" an upcoming mega-series on Conjectures and Refutations.
References:
- My Bayesian Enlightenment by Eliezer Yudkowsky
Rationalist community blogs:
- Less Wrong
- Slate Star Codex
- Marginal Revolution
Yell at us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Back down to earth we go! Or try to, at least. In this episode Ben and Vaden attempt to ground their previous discussion on the philosophy of probability by focusing on a real-world example, namely the book The Precipice by Toby Ord, recently featured on the Making Sense podcast. Vaden believes in arguments, and Ben argues for beliefs.
Quotes
"*A common approach to estimating the chance of an unprecedented event with earth-shaking consequences is to take a skeptical stance: to start with an extremely small probability and only raise it from there when a large amount of hard evidence is presented. But I disagree. Instead, I think the right method is to start with a probability that reflects our overall impressions, then adjust this in light of the scientific evidence. When there is a lot of evidence, these approaches converge. But when there isn’t, the starting point can matter.
In the case of artificial intelligence, everyone agrees the evidence and arguments are far from watertight, but the question is where does this leave us? Very roughly, my approach is to start with the overall view of the expert community that there is something like a one in two chance that AI agents capable of outperforming humans in almost every task will be developed in the coming century. And conditional on that happening, we shouldn’t be shocked if these agents that outperform us across the board were to inherit our future. Especially if when looking into the details, we see great challenges in aligning these agents with our values.*"
- The Precipice, p. 165
"Most of the risks arising from long-term trends remain beyond revealing quantification. What is the probability of China’s spectacular economic expansion stalling or even going into reverse? What is the likelihood that Islamic terrorism will develop into a massive, determined quest to destroy the West? Probability estimates of these outcomes based on expert opinion provide at best some constraining guidelines but do not offer any reliable basis for relative comparisons of diverse events or their interrelations. What is the likelihood that a massive wave of global Islamic terrorism will accelerate the Western transition to non–fossil fuel energies? To what extent will the globalization trend be enhanced or impeded by a faster-than-expected sea level rise or by a precipitous demise of the United States? Setting such odds or multipliers is beyond any meaningful quantification."
- Global Catastrophes and Trends, p. 226
"And while computers have been used for many years to assemble other computers and machines, such deployments do not indicate any imminent self- reproductive capability. All those processes require human actions to initiate them, raw materials to build the hardware, and above all, energy to run them. I find it hard to visualize how those machines would (particularly in less than a generation) launch, integrate, and sustain an entirely independent exploration, extraction, conversion, and delivery of the requisite energies."
- Global Catastrophes and Trends, p. 26
References:
- Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years
- The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity
- Making Sense podcast w/ Ord (Clip starts around 40:00)
- Repugnant conclusion
- Arrow's theorem
- Balinski–Young theorem
Don't leave yet - we swear this will be more interesting than it sounds ...
... But a drink will definitely help. Ben and Vaden dive into the interpretations behind probability. What do people mean when they use the word, and why do we use this one tool to describe different concepts. The rowdiness truly kicks in when Vaden releases his pent-up critique of Bayesianism, thereby losing both his friends and PhD position. But at least he's ingratiated himself with Karl Popper.
References:
- Vaden's Slides on a 1975 paper by Irving John Good titled Explicativity, Corroboration, and the Relative Odds of Hypotheses. The paper is I.J. Good’s response to Karl Popper, and in the presentation I compare the two philosophers’ views on probability, epistemology, induction, simplicity, and content.
- Diversity in Interpretations of Probability: Implications for Weather Forecasting
- Andrew Gelman, Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics
- Popper quote: "Those who identify confirmation with probability must believe that a high degree of probability is desirable. They implicitly accept the rule: ‘Always choose the most probable hypothesis!’ Now it can be easily shown that this rule is equivalent to the following rule: ‘Always choose the hypothesis which goes as little beyond the evidence as possible!’ And this, in turn, can be shown to be equivalent, not only to ‘Always accept the hypothesis with the lowest content (within the limits of your task, for example, your task of predicting)!’, but also to ‘Always choose the hypothesis which has the highest degree of ad hoc character (within the limits of your task)!’" (Conjectures and Refutations p.391)
Get in touch at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
audio updated 13/12/2020
In their first somber episode, Ben and Vaden discuss the protests and political tensions surrounding the murder of George Floyd. They talk about defunding the police, the importance of philosophy in politics, and honest conversation as the only peaceful means of error-correction.
References:
- https://8cantwait.org/
- https://www.8toabolition.com/
- Study which found that body cameras did not have a statistically significant effect.
Errata:
- Ta-Nehisi Coates quote is "essential below" not "eternal under". Full quote is: "It is truly horrible to understand yourself as the essential below of your country."
- Things That Make White People Uncomfortable was written by Michael Bennett, not Michael Barnet
Love and complaints both welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Are computer scientists recklessly applying their methods to other fields without sufficient thoughtfulness? What are computer scientists good for anyway? Ben, in true masochistic fashion, worries that computer scientists are overstepping their bounds. Vaden analyzes his worries with a random forest and determines that they are only 10% accurate, but then proceeds to piss of his entire field by arguing that we're nowhere close to true artificial intelligence.
References
- "Good" isn't good enough, Ben Green.
- "How close are we to creating artificial intelligence?", David Deutsch, Aeon
- "Artificial Intelligence - The Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", Michael Jordan, Medium
- "Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal", Gary Marcus
Errata
- Vaden says "every logarithmic curve starts with exponential growth". This should be "every logistic curve stats with exponential growth".
- Vaden says "95 degree accuracy". This should be "95 percent accuracy."
- The three main rationalists were Descarte, Spinoza, and Leibniz, and the three main empiricists were Bacon, Locke, and Hume. (Not whatever Vaden said)
Ben persuades Vaden that all prisoners should be let loose. Vaden convinces Ben that he shouldn’t use the word “vista” so regularly. At least they stay on topic this time.
References:
- What is the PIC? What is Abolition?, Critical Resistance.
- Is Prison Necessary? NY Times piece covering Ruth Wilson Gilmore.
- What is Prison Abolition, The Nation.
An attempt to clean up the mess we made last episode. Ben still doesn't figure out how not to yell into his microphone, and Vaden finally realizes what Ben was saying and it was … perhaps not so interesting in the first place? Ben, all too pleased with himself, starts yammering on about future generations. Should we care? God — we promise that next week we’ll try to stick to whichever subject we pick.
References:
- Why the long-term future matters, podcast with Toby Ord.
We attempt to talk about Epistemic Modesty: broadly, the idea that one should be modest in their beliefs when other people (with similar credentials) disagree with them. Vaden however, entirely immodestly, tries abandoning the subject because he’s scared of Ben’s forceful arguments and derails the conversation on to the entirely uncontroversial subject of which systems of moral decision making are best suited for moral progress. A flabbergasted Ben tries to keep up, but too little too late. Most of the time he's just trying to get his microphone to behave anyway.
References:
- In defence of epistemic modesty; Greg Lewis.
- Against Modest Epistemology; Eliezer Yudkowski.
- Podcast with Will MacAskill on moral uncertainty.