#Series Episode 1. Massimo Pigliucci on the Demarcation Problem 24 minutes How can you tell science from non-science? Karl Popper argued that the falsifiability of a hypothesis is the mark of science. Massimo Pigliucci is not so sure about that. | | 2. 155: Science vs. Pseudoscience 10 minutes More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/science-vs-pseudo-science. Astronomy... is science; Astrology is pseudo-science. Evolutionary Biology is science; Creationism is pseudo-science. How about cultural anthropology, abstract economics, string-theory, and evolutionary psychology – science or pseudo-science? Is pseudo-science just politically incorrect science? Or is there an objective difference? John and Ken tackle these questions with Stuart Vyse from Connecticut College, author of "Believing in Magic: ... 3. Rationally Speaking #10 - Nonsense on Stilts 31 minutes The focus of this episode is Massimo's new book, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. The book, broadly speaking, is about what philosopher Karl Popper famously called the demarcation problem: how do we tell the difference among science, non-science and pseudoscience? We explore the complex relationship among these, ranging from solid science like fundamental physics and evolutionary biology to definite pseudosciences like astrology and creationism. In the middle are the more interesting borde... 4. 105: Karl Popper 8 minutes More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/karl-popper. Karl... Popper is a landmark figure in the philosophy of science. His notion of "falsifiability" endures to this day and even appears in arguments about creation versus evolution. But what does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable? And where does the idea stand in contemporary philosophy of science? John and Ken test a few ideas on Popper and falsifiability with Denis Phillips from Stanford University. 5. Physicist Tara Shears on Falsification 13 minutes Science is based on fact, right? Cold, unchanging, unarguable facts. Perhaps not, says physicist Tara Shears. Tara is more inclined to follow the principles of the Anglo-Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper. He believed that human knowledge progresses through 'falsification'. A theory or idea shouldn't be described as scientific unless it could, in principle, be proven false. Raised in a Vienna in thrall to Marxism and Freudianism, Popper bristled against these 'sciences' which could adapt and survive to p... 6. Popper 42 minutes Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper whose ideas about science and politics robustly challenged the accepted ideas of the day. He strongly resisted the prevailing empiricist consensus that scientists' theories could be proved true.Popper wrote: “The more we learn about the world and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance”. He believed t... 7. PREMIUM-Episode 82: Karl Popper on Science 30 minutes On Popper's Conjectures and Refutations (1963), the first three essays. What is science, and how is it different than pseudo-science? From philosophy? Is philosophy just pseudo-science, or proto-science, or what? Popper thinks that all legitimate... 8. #047 Weird Science With Karl Popper and Maryam Zaringhalam 35 minutes In this episode you’ll learn the difference between science and pseudoscience and how the philosopher Karl Popper radically changed how we view both. You’ll also hear from molecular biologist turned science advocate, Maryam Zaringhalam, about why diversity is imperative for progress, and how all of us can (and should) ward off science skeptics in order for all of us to be happier. #thehappierhour TheHappierHour.org Fac... 9. Imre Lakatos on Science and Pseudoscience (1973 recording) 19 minutes "Science and Pseudoscience" is Lakatos's most succinct public summary of his philosophy of science. In this talk he outlines his distinctive view of the importance of "the demarcation problem" in the philosophy and history of science, namely the normative methodological problem of distinguishing between science and pseudo-science, and of why its solution is not merely an issue of "armchair philosophy", but also one of vital social and political significance, and even of life and death itself. 10. Rationally Speaking #115 - Maarten Boudry and Massimo On the Difference Between Science and Pseudoscience 33 minutes In our first mini-interview episode Massimo sits down to chat with his colleague Maarten Boudry, a philosopher of science from the University of Ghent in Belgium. Maarten recently co-edited the volume on The Philosophy of Pseudoscience (Chicago Press) with Massimo, and the two chat about the difference between science and pseudoscience and why it is an important topic not just in philosophy circles, but in the broader public arena as well. 11. Rationally Speaking #94 - Maarten Boudry on Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem 60 minutes What's the difference between science and pseudocience -- and is it even possible to draw a clean line separating them? In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia interview philosopher Maarten Boudry from Ghent University. Tune in to hear them discuss Massimo and Maarten's new book, "Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem"... and stick around to learn how Maarten pranked theologians. 12. The Popperian Podcast #5 – Maarten Boudry – ‘Diagnosing Pseudoscience - Why the Demarcation Problem Matters’ 103 minutes This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Maarten Boudry. They speak about how we distinguish between science and pseudoscience (otherwise known as the demarcation problem), Karl Popper’s famous... 13. Rationally Speaking #28 - Live! How To Tell Science From Bunk 49 minutes Massimo and Julia sit down in front of a live audience at the Jefferson Market Library in New York City for a conversation about science, non-science, and pseudo-science. Based on Massimo's book: "Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk" the topics they cover include whether the qualitative sciences are less reliable than quantitative ones, the re-running of the tape of life, and who is smarter: physicists, biologists, or psychologists? Also, why are evolutionary psychologist so fixated on sex? Th... 14. Rationally Speaking #9 - When Smart People Endorse Pseudoscience 32 minutes Why is it that smart people who make it a point of being skeptical and of promoting critical thinking fall for notions that are barely more defensible than astrology, or criticize well established scientific notions. Plus Massimo and Julia's picks: itisonlyatheory.blogspot.com and "The Miracle Detective" 15. #424 Stefaan Blancke: Science, Pseudoscience, Rationality, and Cultural Evolution 60 minutes Dr. Stefaan Blancke is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Tilburg University, Netherlands. He studies the diffusion of (pseudo)scientific beliefs from an epidemiological perspective. His research focuses on the psychological and environmental factors that shape and constrain the development and distribution of these beliefs in the history and philosophy of science, science education and the public understanding of science. He is also interested in the philosophy of cultural evolution and the role of reaso... 16. EV - 205 Pseudoscience Conspiracism with Melanie Trecek-King 68 minutes My guest this week is Melanie Trecek-King (@Thinkingpowers), a teacher at a community college who teaches a course on distinguishing between science, non-science, bad science, and pseudoscience. She also developed a website devoted to same issues called Thinking is Power. We discuss the challenges of pedagogy in the post truth world and how to help students learn how to think vs. what to think. Melanie's website: https://thinkingispower.com/ Convocation:... Void Original Editing by Lu Lyons, check out her a... 17. HoP 366 - The Men Who Saw Tomorrow - Renaissance Magic and Astrology 24 minutes Ficino, Pico, Cardano, and other Renaissance thinkers debate whether astrology and magic are legitimate sciences with a foundation in natural philosophy.
#Series Episode 18. #457 Michael Strevens - The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science 73 minutes Dr. Michael Strevens is Professor of Philosophy at New York University. He works on the philosophy of science, where his interests include explanation, complex systems, probability, confirmation, the social structure of science, and causation; the psychology of concepts; and the philosophical applications of cognitive science. He is the author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science. | In this episode, we focus on The Knowledge Machine. We first talk about science before the scien... 19. 95 | Liam Kofi Bright on Knowledge, Truth, and Science 96 minutes I talk with philosopher Liam Kofi Bright about the nature of truth, how science gets there, and how it could do so more effectively. 20. #475 Lee McIntyre - The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience 60 minutes Dr. Lee McIntyre is a Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University. He is interested in comparative methodology across the natural and social sciences. He is the author of books like Post-Truth, and The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience. | In this episode, we focus on The Scientific Attitude. We start by discussing the demarcation problem and the scientific method, and then go over topics like the scientific attitude; ske... 21. The Limits of Science 56 minutes What is the scientific method? What’s special about it? What are the limits of its application? How does science compare with other ways of knowing and when should we use those other ways in preference to science – if ever? Helping Grant Bartley from Philosophy Now answer these questions will be Ken Gemes from Birkbeck, University of London, Gary Retallick from the Workers’ Educational Association, and Dean Peters from the London School of Economics. First broadcast on 6 March 2012 on Resonance FM. 22. The Popperian Podcast #2 – Matteo Collodel – ‘Karl Popper vs. Paul Feyerabend’ 96 minutes This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Matteo Collodel. They speak about the role that Karl Popper and critical rationalism played in the intellectual development of Paul Feyerabend, the nature of... 23. N/A N/A 24. The Popperian Podcast #3 – Nicholas Maxwell – ‘More Popperian than Popper’ 114 minutes This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Nicholas Maxwell. They speak about Karl Popper’s scientific method, what Maxwell’s disagreements with Popper are, the difference between bare and dressed... 25. N/A N/A