The Dawdler's Philosophy

Yeats repeats “a terrible beauty is born” in his poem “Easter, 1916”. The poem expresses the emotional limbo of Yeats as he grapples with the post World War I Irish rebellion in response to the broken promise of Irish liberation. Out of acts of violence, comes the hope of freedom. Or is it the hope of freedom that fuels acts of violence? Whence progress? Do we make progress with ideas, and if so, does it not require a "terrible beauty" as a means of initiation? In this episode the Dawdler’s use Sabine Hossenfelder’s book “Lost in Math” as a guide to explore where, if anywhere, we ought to place appeals to beauty in our intellectual searches. It’s a theme that has surfaced now and again on the podcast and here the Dawdlers take a bit of a plunge. Settle down with your inner chimp. It’s about to get unreasonable. 00:06:43 – Topic Introduction 00:12:54 – Philosophy of Aesthetics? // Two Theses on Taste 00:22:44 – G.E.P. Box’s Scientific Feedback Loop 00:26:16 – Falsifiability vs. Unplausifiability // Constraints on the Foundations of Physics 00:37:36 – Arguments from Beauty/“Naturalness” // Symmetry Stuff 00:52:24 – Biases 00:56:00 – Harland and Ryan duke it out about aesthetic concerns in ideas?

Ya like how last week we did death? This week we do birth. It also sucks! Can a Dawdler catch a break? What's that? Is that what we are basically known for? Look, don't be a hater. We mean, hustler...

Imagine a beginner's luck without a point of reference, without any obvious design  and you'll have a better picture of intuition and the role it plays in ego and illusion. So there is no luck. There is no accident. Some thinkers are just so in touch with the universe they need not appeal to another authority because they ARE the authority.  In this episode we Dawdlers try to critique how intuition is used in philosophy. Fair warning however. Harland gets pretty chimpy and Ryan enjoys Harland's chimpy-ness perhaps a little too much. Doesn't matter if you lean in or lean back. Either way, your armchair is being sold on Craigslist tomorrow.  -The Dawdlers  00:02:20 - The Armchair Activities, Intuition, Herman Cappelen's Philosophy Without Intuitions & Centrality: What is 'Intuition', How central to philosophy, Is that 'good'/'bad'? 00:22:30 - Cappelen's Questions to the Centralists, Epistemic Hedging, Trophy Problems, Common Ground 00:31:18 - 'Intuitive Plausibility' vs. Conditionals vs. Proofs, Intellectual Egos 00:41:00 - Argumentation Norms and Intellectual Progress, Chimp Warning, Hilary Putnam's Reason, Truth, and History 00:45:30 - Putnam's Intuitionalistic Methodology: Artistic Ants, Twin Earth Dendrology, & Brains in Vats 00:53:50 - Intuition Pumps, Similarity, Representation, & Reference, Sleight of Mind 01:10:10 - Monkeys on Typewriters & Intrinsic Meaning, Causal Theory of Reference, Alternative Intuitive Teleologies 01:22:45 - Putnam Butchers Turing 01:32:12 - Throwing Putnam at Cappelen, An Argument for Centrality 01:43:50 - Ryan puts Harland on the spot to make a bunch of irresponsible snap judgments

Tick, tick, tick, tick... Happy New Year!  Tick, tick, tick... The clock doesn't stop ticking when the ball drops.  Another trip around the sun and we're all another year older.  They haven't fixed aging yet.  Death still seems a likely part of our future.  What's your take on that?  

We are as much our biases as we are our perception to others. Fallibility. It works in mysterious ways. This week the Dawdlers present a discussion from an earlier time than the present moment. It's a conversation they've been meaning to have but not really sure when to have it. But they did...eventually. The topic? An Edge.org annual question: 2005's What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it? Harland and Ryan wax on about some things they think fit the bill, but not until after Harland rewords the question to meet their Dawdler perspective. We all have our trust in ourselves. Let's hope it doesn't make us into overly prideful fools of the double-down. 00:05:00 - An Edge.org question / A Harlandonian re-wording 00:17:21 - Harland's First Claim / Grok talk / Subclaim: language is unlimited 00:32:31 - Ryan's First Claim / Edge question respondents talked about aliens and brains alot 00:43:00 - Harland's Second Claim / Anything is possible / There are no laws of the universe / tendency vs. habit 01:01:35 - Ryan's Second Claim / "new" geological ideas 01:27:54 - Harland's Third Claim / SMIILE 01:42:02 - This topic is tailor-made for Harland to get radical / Episode devolves into math talk

The Dawdlers offer some takes on the concept, possibility, and consequences of time travel.   Not the kind we're all doing every day [real time "forward"], but that kind from the movies where you can go at high speeds in both directions on the entropic autobahn.  Does the idea even make sense?  What might happen if we succeeded?  What's your take?

Harland and Ryan were born on the same day 3 years apart. December 22. To celebrate they're doing an episode on consciousness and how you, yes you, dont have it!! Happy birthday to us, eh? Eh... They don't know philosopher Keith Frankish's birthday, but he doesn't think you have consciousness either even if he doesnt say it explicitly. C'mon Keith!! It's the Dawdlers' birthday!! Jerk. Here's deep birthday vibe dives into a piece Keith wrote about Illusionism and Consciousness. -Dawds 00:00:00 The Great Silliness: Keith Frankish's Consciousness as Illusion 00:06:58 Provocative v. Defensible Claims, Definition of Consciousness, The Hard Problem 00:13:39 The Illusion Problem, Realist v. Illusionist Theories, Psychokinesis example 00:24:25 Phenomenal v. Access Consciousness, What-its-like-ness 00:28:36 Quasi-phenomenal properties, Penrose triangle & Operating System User Illusions 00:40:55 Representations, Interpretations, & Counting transductions 00:50:13 Zombies & What-its-like-type-II, How quasi-phenomenality works in illusionism 00:57:51 Arguments against Realism & for Illusionism, Epiphenomenalism & Occam 01:07:20 Qualia & the Alien Ashtrays, Objections to Illusionism considered 01:28:46 Illusionism v. Eliminativism, Harland's Metaphilosophical Argument 01:39:57 Ryan's Big Question: Why do people care about what they care about?

In this episode, the Dawdlers take on determinism. Are killers gonna kill? Haters gonna hate? Chefs gonna cook? Eh...Anyway, Harland plays therapist and Ryan plays games because they're fun. And this is just the way it is because it has to be, as all things must be in the Determiverse.

People love to talk about the pitfalls of statistics and how we can "lie" with it. Those people don’t do statistics. In science, statistics is often quite difficult. It's there to help us with very complicated problems, not to hurt others with simple craven power leveragings. The Dawdlers discuss the positive side of this dichotomy through a paper by the mid-to-late 20th Century statistician George E.P. Box. Here, he forays into the big vistas of Science and Statistics with his mantra in hand--"All models are wrong, but some are useful." Through discussions of an exemplar, the infamous early 20th Century “scientist” (who was also his father-in-law), R.A. Fisher, Box unpacks the statistical insights of his century's deepest dives into epistemology. Bring an extra pair of socks, muck rakers, things are about to get saturated. 00:02:26 – Science and Statistics by G.E.P. Box / Box’s bumper sticker / Ryan has no plan / More “what is science?” shit 00:19:50 – What is statistics? / Qualitative data 00:33:56 – Who is R.A. Fisher? / Experimental design / Basic concepts in statistics 00:58:32 – Using English to express math / Mathematistry and cookbookery / Trying to control complicated systems 01:10:32 – Does one need advanced math to address complicated problems / Ryan wants to know how to speak math equations well in English / Thinking in words vs thinking in pictures 01:26:10 – Harland has two things to say still / Harland is paranoid Box is talking about him / Mathematical modeling

Hello World. It’s us Dawds, trying out yet another new thing. We thought we’d discuss a kinda off-the-cuff, shootin’-from-the-hip type format in addition to the usual 2+ hours we do. It’s more of a relaxed stroll with intermittent skipping as opposed to the marathons we’ve been doing so far. This time the Dawdlers wanna get each other’s take on whether or not everyone has a “right” to their own opinion. Do they? Should they? What does that even mean? Listen to find out what they think and let them know what you think. What's *your* take?

There are these people in workplaces who have a talent for completing assigned tasks well. Their results are basically always excellent and up to the specifications and requirements for getting the job "done right". Worker bees, we call them. And they are essential for the consistent and routine operation of a workplace. Without them the riffraff hand in a suboptimal and incomplete product. What if someone had this type of talent, but for thinking? How might it look? What is a correct and (nearly) complete thought? A good candidate for the worker bee of thinking might be Ludwig Wittgenstein. In this episode, we Dawdlers focus on this dying man's thoughts on common sense and the external world. Help yourself to the questions because there are no answers. The Dawdlers 00:03:58 - Wittgenstein the Life & Times - The Two Phases of W-'s Thought 00:12:34 - Wittgenstein of the Tractatus v. Wittgenstein of the Investigations 00:19:55 - G.E. Moore's "Proof of an External World" 00:38:07 - G.E. Moore's "A Defense of Common Sense" 00:47:48 - W- First Pick for My Team! - Because he's a Thinker, That Boy! 01:11:25 - Wittgenstein Wrestling His Inner Skeptic 01:33:30 - Language, Epistemology, & Other Infinite Games 02:03:08 - Hinge Epistemology

Ryan has kids. Kids have diseases and general poor hygiene. Thus, Ryan has diseases and sometimes poor hygiene. But he loves ‘em, those little rascals. In this episode, the Dawdlers explore this kind of parental affection, but for ideas. How much affection should we give to our brain children? The discussion centers around a little old paper that holds the key! And the key is as Harland says, “The Method”. In this case, it is the method of multiple working hypotheses. So drink plenty of fluids, get some rest, and prepare to have more children. Or get out of the business of decision making entirely. -The Dawds 00:05:07 - T.C. Chamberlin 00:11:44 - Working Hypotheses, Ruling Theories, & the Parent/Child Metaphor 00:25:40 - Multiple Working Hypotheses, Ethology v. Psychology 00:35:00 - Chamberlin's Geological Examples 00:43:50 - Ryan Loves Evolution & Punctuated Equilibria 00:59:36 - The Null Hypothesis 01:05:05 - The Aim of Science, Truth & The Noble Lie 01:23:23 - Fact & Interpretation & Measurement & Language 01:39:06 - The Paradox of Choice 01:48:30 - Single Child Households & the Masters of Ruling Theories

"If you don't mind haunting the margins, I think there is more freedom there. It's like being a politician in opposition; that's where you can be most sincere. But, of course, you sometimes look at people taking lead parts and think they've got all the gravy." -Colin Firth Unremitting travelers rarely play it safe. How could they? They are in motion. Momentum is both a liberator and a killer. But these adventurers just don’t care. They are obsessed. They are possessed. They are living on the edge… Here, The Dawdler’s Philosophy presents a new theme: Haunting the Margins. We focus on individuals who do the unpopular thing and “get weird”. And they’re nearly always ahead of the ever-hackneyed curve to not become normal in their time even though some may think they are. Nay, they be margin haunters, outlaws, and criminals of the mainstream milieu. They may not all be original in ideas, but they are all original in their actions. First up: Robert Anton Wilson. Here’s to “Maybe”. 00:07:00 – Margin Haunting, Inc. 00:22:39 – RAW, the Man 00:30:00 – Margin Haunter Attributes/Margin Haunter Conditions 00:46:46 – The Incorrigible Optimist/Model Agnosticism 01:18:06 – Discordianism, Expanded/Correct Answer Machines 01:36:16 – Generalism/Drugs & Openness

“I suppose most scientists—most authors—have one piece of work of which they would say: It doesn’t matter if you never read anything else of mine, please at least read *this*.” Richard Dawkins wrote that in a note to a 1989 paperback edition of his book "The Extended Phenotype". Ryan appeals to this sentiment when it comes to the idea he outlines in this episode. Poor Harland has to sit and listen to Ryan talk about his “big idea”; one of resource-driven evolution that either drags a population down where a relic gets new life or pushes it up where abundance begets abundance, the results of which are sometimes the formation of new modes and new lineages. The Dawdlers 00:06:03 – Animal figurines/Diversity & Diversification/Ryan’s “My Story”/Being Different 00:24:38 – Episodic Synchrony 00:46:10 – Impoverishment & Enrichment/Growth Stages/Rate of Increase* 01:13:38 – Anthropogenic Systems/Agritourism/Elite Overproduction 01:40:24 – Examples/Apple Maggot Flies/Cupuladriid Bryozoans/Kelp Gulls/Melanopsid Gastropods 02:19:59 – Harland thinks Episodic Synchrony is Obvious/Convergent Memetics/Harland’s Seal of Approval 02:25:04 – The Prevalence Argument for Episodic Synchrony *Too late, a mortified Ryan now realizes a slip of his tongue when he said (over and over) “reproductive rate” instead of “rate of increase” or “per capita rate of change” [Forehead slap]. GET IT RIGHT, RYAAAANN!!!

There may not be philosophy-free science, but there *is* radical-free philosophy. Harland tries it out for as long as he can in this episode on the possible differences between science and philosophy. Buckle your chin straps, Truth Seekers! 00:04:50 – Science? Philosophy?/Thought experiments/Provisionalism vs Definitionalism 00:42:48 – Modes of Indeference/Progress 01:02:26 – “Social” science/Wolf packs & bears/Singer-songwriters & jazz musicians/Science is data collection, philosophy is everything else/The structure of scientific papers/Philosophy of statistics vs philosophy of science/Calculus is bullshit 01:30:52 - Radicalisuuuuuuuuuuuhm