Philosophy Talk: Select Episodes: Recent Episodes
Philosophy Talk
"The program that questions everything -- except your intelligence."
Philosophy on the radio? You've got to be kidding? Well, sometimes we do (kid, that is). Mostly we look at today's important ideas with an eye to thinking them through.
Philosophy Talk is a weekly, one-hour radio series. The hosts' down-to-earth and no-nonsense approach brings the richness of philosophic thought to everyday subjects. Topics are lofty (Truth, Beauty, Justice), arresting (Terrorism, Intelligent Design, Suicide), and engaging (Baseball, Love, Happiness).
This is not a lecture or a college course; it's philosophy in action!
Philosophy Talk is a fun opportunity to explore issues of importance to your audience in a thoughtful, friendly fashion, where thinking is encouraged.
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/what-ideology.
Political polarization seems to be deepening, both in the U.S. and around the globe. Some believe that the rise of ideology is to blame for growing polarization. But can increased polarization really be attributed to ideology? What is exactly is ideology, and how is it different from dogma? Is ideology a kind of political or philosophical thinking? And how might our understanding of ideology affect how we practice politics? Josh and Ray ideate with Marius Ostrowski from the European University Institute, author of "Ideology (Key Concepts)."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/could-robots-be-persons.
As we approach the advent of autonomous robots, we must decide how we will determine culpability for their actions. Some propose creating a new legal category of “electronic personhood” for any sufficiently advanced robot that can learn and make decisions by itself. But do we really want to assign artificial intelligence legal—or moral—rights and responsibilities? Would it be ethical to produce and sell something with the status of a person in the first place? Does designing machines that look and act like humans lead us to misplace our empathy? Or should we be kind to robots lest we become unkind to our fellow human beings? Josh and Ray do the robot with Joanna Bryson, Professor of Ethics and Technology at the Hertie School of Governance, and author of "The Artificial Intelligence of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: An Introductory Overview for Law and Regulation."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/what-can-virtual-reality-actually-do.
VR transports users into all kinds of different realities, some modeled on the real world, others completely invented. Though still in its infancy, the technology has become so sophisticated, it can trick the brain into treating the virtual experience as real and unmediated. So what is the most prudent way to employ this cutting edge technology going forward? Could VR help solve real world problems, like implicit bias or the climate crisis? And as the technology becomes more widely available, are there potential dangers we ought to be seriously thinking about? Josh and Ray strap on their headsets with Jeremy Bailenson, Director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford, and author of "Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/social-lives-robots.
Machines might surpass humans in terms of computational intelligence, but when it comes to social intelligence, they’re not very sophisticated. They have difficulty reading subtle cues—like body language, eye gaze, or facial expression—that we pick up on automatically. As robots integrate more and more into human life, how will they figure out the codes for appropriate behavior in different contexts? Can social intelligence be learned via an algorithm? And how do we design socially smart robots to be of special assistance to children, older adults, and people with disabilities? Josh and Ray read the room with Elaine Short from Tufts University, co-author of more than 20 papers on human-robot interaction, including "Robot moderation of a collaborative game: Towards socially assistive robotics in group interactions."
More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/time-summer-reading.
When John and Ken began shopping around their idea for a philosophy-on-the-radio show nearly 20 years ago, many believed it would never work, let alone stay on the air. Nearly two decades later, the program that questions everything (except your intelligence) has hit 500 episodes -- just in time for current co-hosts Josh and Ray to spend our annual summer reading show thinking about time and books about time:
• Physicist Carlo Rovelli, author of "The Order of Time" • Political scientist Elizabeth Cohen, author of "The Political Value of Time" • Poet and essayist Jane Hirshfield, author of "Ledger"
Plus philosopher Jorah Dannenberg on Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life."
More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/ken-taylor-tribute.
The Philosophy Talk team is deeply saddened by Ken Taylor's untimely passing this month. Ken was the show's co-founder, longtime co-host, chief cheerleader, and guiding light. In this special episode, co-hosts Josh Landy and Debra Satz, along with host emeritus and co-creator John Perry, remember their colleague and friend. They also hear from past guests, former students, and others touched by Ken's life and work.
We're also touched and honored that Ken's family has requested that donations in his memory be made to www.philosophytalk.org/donate.
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/foreign-aid-or-injury.
Many of us might think that developed nations should lead the effort to end global poverty. But decades of foreign aid—from governments and non-governmental organizations—has failed to produce sustainable growth in the developing world. How can we empower local actors to become self-sufficient rather than dependent on foreign aid? Is there a way to help those in the developing world without inadvertently giving more power to corrupt dictators? Do developed nations have an obligation to fight global poverty the right way? Debra and Ken enlist the aid of Dartmouth economist John Welborn.
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/does-science-over-reach.
We've all heard the phrase, "You can't argue with science." Appealing to scientific fact as a way to settle a question makes sense given the amazing advancements science has brought us in understanding how the world works. But should we take the accomplishments of science as evidence for scientism—the view that science is the best and only way to acquire genuine knowledge? Does faith in science require that we disregard all non-scientific viewpoints? Are there important questions that science cannot answer? Josh and Ken collect their data with Massimo Pugliucci from CUNY, editor of "Science Unlimited?: The Challenges of Scientism."
https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/radical-markets.
Many people think that growing inequality, the rise of populism and nativism, and the decay of democratic institutions all have the same cause—the overreach of markets. The solution, they believe, is to limit the market through regulation. But what if rather than shrinking the market, the answer lies in expanding the market? Is it possible that we haven't let markets go far enough? Do our current regulations lead to too many monopolies? And could turning more things into assets that are for sale to the highest bidder actually be the solution to our new gilded age? Debra and Ken buy and sell with Glen Weyl from Yale University, co-author of "Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/repugnant-markets.
We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France's attitude toward horse meat. What role, if any, should moral repugnance play in determining the rules of our marketplaces? Even if we want to eliminate the influence of moral repugnance, can we? Debra and Ken hold their noses with Al Roth from Stanford University, author of "Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/faith-and-humility.
Some would argue that faith requires that one blindly—rather than rationally— believe. Faith in one ‘true’ religion often entails rejection of all others. Given this, can there ever be humility when it comes to religious faith? How unwavering should the faithful be when it comes to their religious convictions, attitudes, and actions? Should we encourage religious humility, or would it taint the very concept of faith? Can religious faith and intellectual humility ever be reconciled? The Philosophers humbly believe in talking to Joshua Hook from the University of North Texas, co-author of "Cultural Humility: Engaging Diverse Identities in Therapy."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/are-we-alone.
News that life might exist or have existed on Mars or somewhere else in our universe excites many. But should we really be happy to hear that news? What are the philosophical implications of the possibility of extraterrestrial life? If life can blossom in our own cosmic backyard, then that means that the universe is most likely saturated with life forms. And if that’s the case, why haven’t we found any evidence of other civilizations? Is it because all civilizations are prone to suicidal destruction at a certain point in their development? If so, how might we avoid this fate? The Philosophers search for life with Paul Davies from Arizona State University, author of "The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/trolling-bullying-and-flame-wars.
Open up any online comments section and you’ll find them: internet trolls, from the mildly inflammatory to the viciously bullying. It seems that the ease of posting online leads many to abandon any semblance of intellectual humility. So can we have intellectual humility on an anonymous forum with little oversight and accountability? Does current online behavior portend the end of humility in the public domain? How do we encourage greater humility and less arrogance in any public discourse? The Philosophers comment offline with Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of "The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/how-humbly-disagree.
People like to argue, especially Philosophy Talk listeners! But no matter how hard we try to resolve disputes through rational discourse, sometimes we may still disagree about important issues. One response to this predicament is simply to agree to disagree. But should the mere fact of disagreement lower our confidence in our views? Should we change how we judge our own beliefs when we realize that other people disagree? Or do we only have reason to doubt our beliefs when we learn that experts disagree with us? The Philosophy humbly welcome Nathan Ballantyne from Fordham University, author of "Knowing Our Limits" (forthcoming).
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/could-laws-physics-change.
From airplanes flying overhead to the cellular activity inside us, all events that take place in the world obey the laws of physics. Physicists seem to be getting closer and closer to understanding the physical laws that govern our universe. But what if our physical laws changed? Could that even be possible? How might changing of physical laws affect us? Or is just that what we take to be laws changes over time? Should we still call the laws of physics “laws”? The philosophers conserve mass with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of "Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/cognitive-bias.
Aristotle thought that rationality was the faculty that distinguished humans from other animals. However, psychological research shows that our judgments are plagued by systematic, irrational, unconscious errors known as ‘cognitive biases.’ In light of this research, can we really be confident in the superiority of human rationality? How much should we trust our own judgments when we are aware of our susceptibility to bias and error? And does our awareness of these biases obligate us to counter them? The Philosophers shed their biases with Brian Nosek from the University of Virginia, co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science.
More at https://philosophytalk.org/shows/knowing-what-we-know.
It seems like we know many facts about ourselves and the world around us, even if there vastly many others we know that we don’t know. But how do we know if what we believe to be true is really knowledge? Can our beliefs be both justified and true, yet still not count as genuine knowledge? If so, then how much confidence should we really have in our beliefs? Is there a way to strike a balance between paralyzing skepticism, on the one hand, and dogmatic conviction, on the other? John and Ken know that their guest is Baron Reed from Northwestern University, author of "The Long Road to Skepticism."
More at https://philosophytalk.org/shows/space-time-continuum.
Strange things are said about time: that it's illusory, that it has no direction. But what about space, or the space-time continuum? What exactly is space-time? Are space and time fundamental features of the world? How do Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity change our understanding of space-time? Is there a distinction to be made between space and time, or must the two concepts be united into a single interwoven continuum? John and Ken fill time and space with Tim Maudlin from NYU, author of "Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/mystery-multiverse.
At the foundation of modern theoretical physics lie the equations that define our universe, telling us of its beginnings, evolution, and future. Make even minor adjustments to the fundamental laws of the universe, and life as we know it would not exist. How do we explain this extraordinary fact that our universe is so uniquely fine-tuned for life? Could our universe may be just one of infinitely many in a vast multiverse? Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected from this one? Can science ever prove or disprove the multiverse theory? Or does the theory make some testable predictions about our finely-tuned universe? John and Ken multiply their thoughts with George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, author of "How Can Physics Underlie the Mind?"
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/dark-matter.
All the matter we have ever observed accounts for less than 5% of the universe. The rest? Dark energy and dark matter: mysterious entities that we only know about from their interactions with other matter. We infer their existence to satisfy our laws—but are we justified in making conclusions about what we cannot directly measure? How far can we trust our scientific laws? Where do we cross the line from theoretical science to metaphysics, and can the two overlap? John and Ken see the light with Priya Natarajan from Yale University, author of "Mapping the Heavens: The Radical Scientific Ideas That Reveal the Cosmos."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/big-bang-before-and-after.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory about the “birth” of the universe. It posits a singularity, or super high density state from which the entire universe expanded and continues to expand. But what exactly is the Big Bang, and what’s the evidence that it took place? How do we account for the “Big Bang state”? Was there something before the Big Bang? What does the theory posit about the future of the universe? And what role does philosophy play in answering these mysteries? John and Ken have a singular conversation with Katherine Freese from the University of Michigan, author of "The Cosmic Cocktail: Three Parts Dark Matter."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/why-something.
The old metaphysical question – why anything exists at all – has perplexed and intrigued humankind for ages. It has long been a question reserved for philosophers, but now some physicists claim to have answered it. Yet these attempts have raised questions of their own: is this even a meaningful question in the first place? Can it be answered by science alone, or is philosophy necessary? And what will answering the question mean for us? John and Ken find something to talk about with Jim Holt, author of "Why Does The World Exist: An Existential Detective Story."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/ancient-cosmos.
Even in ancient Greek society, philosopher-scientists engaged in heated debate about the origin, composition, and structure of our universe. Tracking our understanding of cosmology from then until now shows monumental shifts in thinking. So what did the Ancients think was the fundamental nature of the cosmos, and what kind of evidence did they use to support their theories? How did Copernicus provoke such a radical shift in cosmology? And what should we think about the status of scientific theories if they can be subject to such massive conceptual shifts? John and Ken ponder the cosmos with Carlo Rovelli from Aix-Marseille University, author of "Seven Brief Lessons on Physics."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/living-through-others
Imagine that the world will end in thirty days. Would your life have meaning anymore? Would anyone’s? It seems that there would no longer be any point to making technological or medical advances, developing new forms of art, or even taking good care of ourselves. Imagining the doomsday scenario shows that there is something particularly disturbing about the prospect that not only we, but also everyone else, will die. Why is this? Would our lives be nearly as meaningful if others did not live on after our death? Could our “collective afterlife” through the lives of others actually be more important than the “personal afterlife” with which we are so often preoccupied? John and Ken live on through Samuel Scheffler from NYU, author of "Death & the Afterlife."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/technology-immortality
Some futurists believe we are not far from a time when technology and medicine will be so advanced that humans need no longer die of old age or other natural causes. Eventually, not only will we be able to replace our natural body parts, but we might even be able to “download” our selves into a new cybernetic body. But is this a realistic possibility or just a confused fantasy? Is the self the kind of thing that can be downloaded and persist through radical changes in its “hardware”? And if it were possible for people to indefinitely extend their biological lives, what would the moral implications be for social inequality and distribution of the planet’s finite resources? John and Ken look beyond the mortal coil with Kevin O'Neill from the University of Redlands, author of "Internet Afterlife: Virtual Salvation in the Twenty-First Century" (forthcoming).
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/reincarnation-past-lives-future-selves.
According to Buddhist tradition, all people must suffer illness, aging, and death. Yet the universe is seen as a vast living entity, in which cycles of individual life and death are repeated without cease. Therefore death is a necessary part of the process of life, making renewal and new growth possible. So what does this view mean about the eternality of the self? Is there a single subject or consciousness that persists through all the cycles of death and rebirth? What are the karmic consequences of one’s moral acts for future lives? And how can the view of endless death and rebirth lead to greater compassion for all life? John and Ken revisit their past with Robert Thurman from Columbia University, author of "Infinite Life: Awakening to Bliss Within."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/whats-next-death-and-afterlife.
The question of what happens to us after we die remains as mysterious now as it always was. Some think that death amounts to total annihilation of the self; others adhere to certain religious traditions, which teach that the immaterial soul (and, in some traditions, the resurrected body) can ultimately survive death. So how are we to judge between these radically different views of what happens to us in death? What would it mean for the self to persist beyond the destruction of the body? Is there room in a scientific account of the mind for the existence of an immaterial soul? John and Ken see the light with Richard Swinburne from the University of Oxford, author of "Mind, Brain, and Free Will."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/mind-and-world.
What kinds of contact can the mind have with the world? Can we know how the world is in itself, or can we only know shadows of the world in our own minds? Are we trapped behind a veil of our own mental states? Is there a world outside my mind – or our minds – at all? John and Ken tackle the big questions of perception, the external world, and the nature of reality, with Howard Robinson from the Central European University, author of "Perception."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/worship.
Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something. The attitude of worship towards God or gods or ancestors is a universal of human culture. But why do we worship? Do objects of worship need to fulfill certain criteria? Does worship play a positive or negative role in human culture? Is it clear that a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God truly wants to be worshipped? Some pagan religions worship the earth, or the aspects of nature that make human life possible and rewarding. Does this make more sense than worshipping an imperfect God? The Philosophers express their reverence with Daniel Speak from Loyola Marymount University.
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/challenges-free-will.
We seem to be able to decide our behavior for ourselves – what we do is up to us. But if everything that we do can be explained by physics, does this leave room for freedom? Are all of our actions pre-determined? Are we slaves to fate? Is freedom compatible with determinism, or does science teach us that we're nothing but complex machines, following out a complicated program that a good enough physicist could have predicted centuries ago? And what are the implications for morality and responsibility? John and Ken exercise their will with Manuel Vargas from the University of San Francisco.
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/creativity.
What makes an idea or work of art creative? Can creativity be measured? Can a computer be creative? What is the relationship between creativity and consciousness? John and Ken explore their creative sides with Margaret Boden from the University of Sussex, author of "The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/levels-reality.
Are there levels of reality, with each level emerging from the other in a way that provides a truly new aspect of reality? The concept of emergence has been seen as an alternative to mere reducibility in discussion of the relation of the physical world to the biological world, consciousness, the social world, and God. Ken and John probe the nature of reality with Tim O'Connor, Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University and author of "Theism and Ultimate Explanation.:
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/dualism.
What is the relationship between the mind and the brain? Monists believe that there is only one substance or property in the Universe, be it physical (Materialists) or mental (Idealists). But Dualists, like the 17th Century French philosopher Rene Descartes, hold that mental stuff exists side by side with physical stuff. Can this view be defended, in light of modern science? John and Ken probe the mind-body with David Rosenthal from City University of New York, author of "Consciousness and Mind."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/altruism.
Are people genuinely altruistic, or is altruism just a type of selfish-behavior? Are other animals altruistic? Should we strive to be altruistic, or is selfishness a higher virtue? John and Ken take the moral high ground with their guest Jeff Schloss, Professor and Chair of Biology at Westmont College and co-editor of "Altruism and Altruistic Love: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Dialogue."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/problem-evil.
Many religions tell us that God is perfect: all-knowing, all-powerful, and beneficent. Why then do bad things happen? John and Ken discuss the problem of evil with their guest, Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado at Boulder, co-author of "Knowledge of God."
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/saint-augustine.
The philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo is one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity. His efforts against the Manichean, Arian and Pelagain heresies shaped the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. His "Confessions" tells the story of his own conversion from Manicheanism to Christianity. His philosophical ideas anticipated Saint Thomas Aquinas and Descartes. His three-volume City of God remains a classic of Christian apologetics. And many find the roots of some of the darker sides of Christian doctrine, from the emphasis on original sin to the second-rate status for women, in his works. John and Ken welcome Georgetown University Provost James O'Donnell, author of "Augustine, Sinner & Saint: A New Biography."
More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/concept-god.
What does "God" mean? Is God a concrete thing like a chair or a human; or is it an abstract thing, like love or goodness? Is there something that all concepts of God have in common, some feature that all cultures attribute to God? Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford, joins John and Ken to explore the many ways in which people across the world conceive of the divine.
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/faith-reason-and-science
Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of "Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will," to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us.