Show Notes
Is the future one where we accept tribalism and conflict as inherent in the human condition, where moral and scientific beliefs based on reason are badges, shaped by class, nation, ethnicity and culture? Or is reason more important than ever, not as a route to truth, but as a means to test the effectiveness and consequences of a given outlook? And can we reclaim reason as a method for resisting the crowd rather than following it? Reason was supposedly the great liberator – an Enlightenment gift that freed us from blind adherence to tradition and the authority of church and state. But today, many now contend this is a comforting myth. For as Benjamin Franklin put it, reason merely helps us “make a reason for everything one already has a mind to do.” Furthermore, studies confirm people with more developed reasoning skills are more susceptible to groupthink and polarization, not less. For the more rational we are, the better we are at justifying what we already believe – especially when it aligns with our social circle. Dan Sperber is a distinguished anthropologist and philosopher who is the author of several critically-acclaimed books, including The Enigma of Reason. Steve Fuller is a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick. He is the author of dozens of books, including Post-truth: Knowledge as a Power Game. Miriam Schoenfield is a leading epistemologist, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, and award-winning essayist. Jack Symes is a public philosopher and writer. He is the producer of The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast and editor of the Bloomsbury series Talking about Philosophy. He is currently Teacher and Researcher at Durham University, UK. Don't hesitate to email us at [email protected] with your thoughts or questions on the episode! To witness such talks live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/ And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/ You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimes See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
More from Philosophy For Our Times
Description Does the left really need to be more conservative? What is the difference between capital C and lowercase c conservatism? Is the Blue Labour movement the best tool against the MAGA agenda and right wing nationalism?
Should we give up seeing evidence as the truth and instead see it as a persuasive argument? Does evidence settle the matter or is a counter-narrative always possible? And if evidence is not the truth, how are we to choose between competing perspectives and models of the world? We turn to evidence to settle the matter. And we imagine it is evidence that confirms a scientific theory, or the guilt of an accused. But perspective can result in evidence being interpreted radically differently. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. More broadly some argue all so-called 'facts' are context or theory dependent. And if evidence depends on perspective, it is no longer clear what counts as evidence in the first place. Unlike the French legal system, that assumes evidence determines truth, the English system embeds opposing narratives, each employing their own 'evidence' to support a case. The same is true when physicists operate with different models of reality, recognising that alternative frameworks can be used.
Are homo sapiens the only organisms capable of creating and experiencing beauty? Can we find beauty in God? Why do we see the hand of an Artist in the Natural, if God does not exist?
What does it mean for rationality to be ‘permissive’? Is rationality more limited than we would like to admit? Does the idea that ‘truth is the aim of belief’ still stand?
What makes humans different from nature? What do Confucianism and Daoism have to do with physics? Is science too realist? In part 2 of our interview with Carlo Rovelli, we help unpick the history of the philosophy of science. From uncovering how millennia old Chinese philosophers were debating Enlightenment philosophical principles, to finding whether the self and consciousness are functionally identical, Rovelli's argument finds a home in a single statement: we must rehumanise science.