Does Free Will Exist? | Sapolsky vs. Huemer Debate ReviewMajesty of Reason2024-01-08 | I’m joined by Dr. Taylor Cyr to review the recent debate between Dr. Robert Sapolsky and Dr. Michael Huemer on free will.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidHow William Lane Craig misrepresents scienceMajesty of Reason2024-10-01 | I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Linford and Phil Halper to explain what Craig gets wrong about science's bearing on the beginning of the universe. Specifically, we respond to a recent video by @ReasonableFaithOrg.
0:00 Intro 2:22 Craig’s video 9:22 Material causality 18:14 Beginning to exist 20:05 Big Bang and cosmological models 33:18 No particular model is probable? 36:26 Past finitude doesn’t imply beginning 51:57 Quantum gravity 55:51 Window shade analogy 1:00:10 BGV Theorem 1:17:13 Vilenkin’s paper 1:26:00 Sean Carroll and Guth 1:38:12 The fixed Kalam 1:41:20 Abstract object counterexamples? 1:51:45 Second law of thermodynamics 1:55:10 The universe as a counterexample? 1:57:56 Document! Don’t just assert! 2:06:45 Conclusion
NOTE
At 1:15:05, I wanted to summarize the problems with Craig’s use of the BGV theorem. I didn’t provide the most helpful summary in the video, so here’s a summary:
(1) At best, the BGV theorem shows that a spacetime region which has been expanding on average throughout its history could not have been expanding forever. Such an expanding region must have begun its expansion at some finitely distant point in the past. This does *not* imply that all of spacetime *itself* has a beginning because all of spacetime may not have been expanding on average throughout its history. In such a case, the BGV Theorem would be inapplicable to the whole of spacetime itself. In fact, as pointed out in the video, both Guth and Vilenkin explicitly say that the BGV theorem only shows that the *inflation* of the universe has a beginning, it doesn’t show that the *universe as a whole* or *spacetime as a whole* has a beginning.
(3) The BGV theorem is only a theorem about classical spacetimes. But we probably don’t live in a classical spacetime. We have good reasons internal to the standard model and general relativity for thinking that these theories will be surpassed by a new theory able to incorporate both. So our current understanding of spacetime will be replaced by something else. So the BGV theorem does not apply to the spacetime we live in.
(4) Even if we do live in a classical spacetime, the Malamant-Manchak theorems show that, in all likelihood, we couldn’t ever know enough about the global structure of spacetime to know that *all* of spacetime had a beginning.
(5) Even if the BGV theorem shows that the past is finite — and, as explained above, it does not — we cannot infer that the universe (i.e., the totality of all physical reality) began to exist, for the reasons given in the section of the video entitled “Past finitude does not entail beginning to exist”.
(11) Linford, "Big Bounce or Double Bang? A Reply to Craig and Sinclair": http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17188/1/FORTHCOMING_Big_Bang_or_Double_Bounce_Erk_Sub.pdf
(12) Linford, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Meets the Mentaculus”: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16833/1/Online_Final_BJPS_Kalam_Mentaculus_Submission.pdf
(15) My website: josephschmid.comThe new REBUTTED case for Gods existenceMajesty of Reason2024-09-15 | Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent) recently explained the new case for God's existence. In this video, I rebut his new case for God's existence.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidIf God exists, is everything permitted? | Dr. Justin Mooney & Dr. Luis OliveiraMajesty of Reason2024-09-07 | Today I’m joined by Justin Mooney and Luis Oliveira to discuss a new aspects of the problem of evil.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidAgainst single-issue pro-life votingMajesty of Reason2024-08-24 | If the pro-life view is correct, should we prioritize abortion over every other issue in politics and voting? Dustin Crummett argues that the answer is no.
My website: josephschmid.comGrim Reaper Paradoxes and Patchwork Principles | Ft. @FrictionMajesty of Reason2024-08-09 | The Grim Reaper Paradox does not support the Kalam cosmological argument. In this video, Troy and I explain why.
(2) Troy's other links: https://link.space/@Friction
(3) The paper discussed in the video is “Grim Reaper Paradoxes and Patchwork Principles: Severing the Case for Finitism”, Journal of Philosophy (Forthcoming): philarchive.org/rec/SCHGRP-4
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidArguments for and against Molinism | Dr. Daniel RubioMajesty of Reason2024-07-26 | Molinism is a popular view of divine providence, but it has serious problems. I'm joined by Daniel Rubio to explore these problems and more.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidA problem for effective altruism? | Dr. Travis TimmermanMajesty of Reason2024-07-12 | Effective altruism faces a serious dilemma. How might the effective altruist solve it? I'm joined by Dr. Travis Timmerman to explore this question as well as the actualism/possibilism debate in ethics.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidThe Modal Ontological Argument: An AnalysisMajesty of Reason2024-06-28 | Here's your comprehensive guide to the modal ontological argument for God's existence!
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidCausal finitism is NOT the best solution to infinity paradoxesMajesty of Reason2024-06-14 | How should we solve paradoxes of infinity like the Grim Reaper Paradox? One candidate solution is causal finitism. In this video, Alex Malpass and I argue that there’s a better solution: the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis (UPD).
0:00 Intro 1:45 Summary of the paper 3:08 Grim Reaper paradox 8:07 The Kalam 9:52 Causal finitism 12:55 The UPD 23:16 Problems with causal finitist solution 44:30 Mysterious force objection 56:47 Patchwork objection 1:13:20 Finite Benardete-like paradoxes 1:15:35 Final notes
(2) The paper discussed in the video is “Benardete Paradoxes, Causal Finitism, and the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis”, Mind (Forthcoming, with Alex Malpass): philarchive.org/rec/SCHBPC
(4.4) “Grim Reaper Paradoxes and Patchwork Principles: Severing the Case for Finitism”, Journal of Philosophy (Forthcoming, with Troy Dana): philarchive.org/rec/SCHGRP-4
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidDivine Foreknowledge vs. Human Freedom in Five MinutesMajesty of Reason2024-06-01 | Is divine foreknowledge compatible with human freedom? Let's see if we can answer this in five minutes.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidAre we moral monsters? | Peter Singer on Charitable GivingMajesty of Reason2024-05-19 | Peter Singer argues that you are morally obliged to donate to charity even at considerable personal cost. Is he right?
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidWhy atheists can blame Trent Horn for his bad argumentsMajesty of Reason2024-04-20 | Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent) recently argued that atheists cannot blame Christians for anything. In this video, I explain why he's wrong.
0:00 Intro 1:00 Definitions 1:48 Trent’s video 4:24 Are atheists blaming Craig? 6:05 ‘Should’ implies alternative possibilities? 8:14 Power to change the future 8:50 Linguistic incaution 10:39 Sapolsky 11:49 Trent’s core argument 16:11 What’s the difference??? 20:12 Leeway freedom 24:22 Atheism and reductive physicalism 25:51 Humans vs. animals 28:24 Libertarianism and laws of nature 32:55 Does theism preclude moral responsibility? 38:56 Luck objection 42:43 Punishment and moral responsibility 47:07 Old Testament God = North Korea 48:53 Clarifying compatibilism 51:54 Trent contra compatibilism 54:19 Trent’s second argument 57:21 Frankfurt cases 1:04:20 Flickers of freedom 1:11:02 Resources and conclusion
CORRECTIONS
(1) In the section entitled "Should’ implies alternative possibilities?", I contest the idea that 'S should φ' implies 'S could do something alternative to φ-ing'. I think my counterexamples to that idea are correct, but I don't think they actually address Trent's claim in the preceding clip. In particular, Trent's claim was instead that 'S should φ' implies 'S could φ'. Importantly, though, many of my examples can be modified to motivate denying this claim too. For instance, just imagine the boulder-trapping-arm case to be one in which you're compelled *not* to hack off your arm by your psychology (maybe you're very queasy). Still, it seems like you *should* hack off your arm!
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidHow to excel at philosophyMajesty of Reason2024-04-15 | What is philosophy? Why is it valuable? And how do we do it well? Here I talk about these topics and more.
0:00 Intro 0:56 The nature of philosophy 11:43 The value of philosophy 14:30 Is reason beautiful? 19:07 Intellectual virtues 25:34 How to communicate and engage philosophically 33:45 Pervasive mistakes 36:55 Mind changes 40:11 Personal factors 46:31 Recommendations
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidAvoid these 15 mistakes about Free Will, Christianity, and ConsciousnessMajesty of Reason2024-02-28 | In this final part of the common mistakes series, we cover mistakes about free will, Christianity, and consciousness.
25:28 I should have explicitly and clearly specified that a large portion of the section on OT atrocities — Mistake 168 — was not just drawn from Josh Parikh’s talk but *directly* drawn from Parikh’s talk, ie, quoted therefrom. Apologies for not clarifying this at the outset. I've now updated the document containing Mistake 168 to reflect this clarification. You can see the updated document here: docs.google.com/document/d/15_GnNWL8lZJUU-640OoKwNP3BSocQJDfWD38OYJF9Y0/edit?usp=sharing
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidApples dont existMajesty of Reason2024-02-17 | Here I cover the explanatory exclusion argument for mereological nihilism, which the view that composite objects don't exist.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidLEVEL UP by avoiding these mistakes about GodMajesty of Reason2024-02-05 | Level up your philosophy of religion game by avoiding these common mistakes about models of God, divine simplicity, Thomism, and more.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidGrim Reapers and Endless Futures: A Problem for the KalamMajesty of Reason2024-01-23 | The Grim Reaper Paradox has been used to support the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Here I mount a grim challenge to this sort of reasoning: implying the impossibility of an endless future.
0:00 Intro 2:55 The paper 8:18 The unsatisfiable pair 14:35 B-arguments 17:34 A grim dilemma 20:55 A future-oriented paradox 31:44 First line: Patchwork principles 41:33 Second line: Mysterious forces 50:37 Summary 51:58 Conclusion
CORRECTIONS
At 8:02, I accidentally cut out the last two words of my sentence. I should have said "...equally motivate this new linking premise."
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidThese mistakes are RUINING your philosophy of religion gainsMajesty of Reason2023-12-27 | Build your mental muscle by avoiding these mistakes about the problem of evil and divine hiddenness.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidCommon Mistakes about the Moral Argument, Fine-Tuning, and Ontological ArgumentsMajesty of Reason2023-12-15 | In this fourth installment of my common mistakes series, I cover mistakes relating to the moral argument, fine-tuning argument, and ontological arguments.
(5) My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid32 CAREER-ENDING mistakes about the Kalam and contingency argumentsMajesty of Reason2023-11-21 | In this third installment of my common mistakes series, I cover mistakes relating to the Kalam cosmological argument and contingency arguments.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidDo extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?Majesty of Reason2023-11-10 | Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But is he right?
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidFine-Tuning, Cosmic Purpose, and Psychophysical Harmony | Dr. Philip GoffMajesty of Reason2023-10-31 | Is there purpose behind the universe? Philip Goff joins me to explain why he thinks the answer is yes. We cover fine-tuning, psychophysical harmony, and more.
0:00 Intro 1:22 About the book 3:54 Fine-tuning 15:01 Epistemically illuminated region 24:23 Multiverse & Inverse gambler’s fallacy 55:27 Electrons in love 1:01:00 Too low intrinsic probability 1:07:08 Psychophysical harmony 1:20:23 Conclusion
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidAvoid these HUGE MISTAKES about theism, atheism, and agnosticismMajesty of Reason2023-10-20 | In this second part of a seven part series, we cover common mistakes relating to theism, atheism, agnosticism, and naturalism.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidIs everything necessary? | Dr. Josh Rasmussen & Dr. Amy KarofskyMajesty of Reason2023-09-30 | I’m joined by Josh Rasmussen and Amy Karofsky to explore whether there’s any contingency in reality. It’s a MUST watch. (Or maybe not?)
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidThese 54 mistakes are KILLING your philosophy gameMajesty of Reason2023-09-05 | In this first part of a seven part series, we cover common mistakes relating to epistemology, argumentation, philosophical methodology, the nature of philosophy, and behavior.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidSkeptical Theism and the Problem of Evil | Dr. Perry HendricksMajesty of Reason2023-08-23 | Today I’m joined by Perry Hendricks to discuss skeptical theist responses to arguments from evil. We also cover seven objections to skeptical theism.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidIs moral realism the common sense view? | Dr. Lance BushMajesty of Reason2023-08-09 | Are ordinary people moral realists? Dr. Lance Bush doesn't think so. He joins me today to discuss his reasons why.
00:00 Intro 1:45 Experimental philosophy 3:11 Stances, commitments, and intuitions 13:09 Metaethics and folk metaethics 18:02 Moral realism and anti-realism 21:10 Disagreement paradigm 30:45 WEIRD populations 37:07 Confounds and validity 39:50 Tolerance confound 44:22 Normative confound 49:15 Epistemic confound / scope ambiguity 58:28 Open response data 1:04:32 Polzler & Wright 2020 1:20:08 Folk metaethical indeterminacy 1:27:45 Lance’s quantum mechanics study 1:41:14 Moral realism is the common sense view? 1:44:20 Lance’s closing comments 1:50:17 Conclusion
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidWhatever begins to exist has a cause? | Dr. Daniel LinfordMajesty of Reason2023-07-27 | Today I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Linford to discuss the Kalam's causal principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. In particular, we discuss the first half of a video produced by @ReasonableFaithOrg.
0:00 Intro 0:39 A false dichotomy 2:06 Three arguments for the causal principle 3:51 Argument from intuition (or magic?) 14:20 Argument from chaos 19:00 Science and everyday experience 26:52 Dan’s reasons for rejecting the principle 32:24 Conclusion
RESOURCES
(1) The video to which we're responding (from @ReasonableFaithOrg): youtu.be/6CulBuMCLg0
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidNo, science doesn’t show the universe began to exist | Dr. Daniel LinfordMajesty of Reason2023-07-14 | Today I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Linford to respond to the scientific case for the universe's beginning as well as the claim that the universe's cause must be God. In particular, we discuss a video produced by @ReasonableFaithOrg.
0:00 Intro 2:30 WLC’s video 3:16 Past finitude doesn’t imply beginning 19:45 Second Law of Thermodynamics 28:00 Red shift and Big Bang cosmology 36:53 Successive failure of models 39:45 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem 46:05 Stage Two: Properties of the cause 46:55 Spaceless? 53:13 Timeless? 56:02 Immaterial? 59:38 Uncaused? 1:02:57 Unimaginably powerful? 1:06:42 God? 1:12:35 Conclusion
RESOURCES
(1) The video to which we're responding (from @ReasonableFaithOrg): youtu.be/6CulBuMCLg0
(6) Dan's paper, "Big Bounce or Double Bang? A Reply to Craig and Sinclair on the Interpretation of Bounce Cosmologies": http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17188/1/FORTHCOMING_Big_Bang_or_Double_Bounce_Erk_Sub.pdf
(7) Dan’s paper, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Meets the Mentaculus”: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16833/1/Online_Final_BJPS_Kalam_Mentaculus_Submission.pdf
(10) Phil Halper's (@PhilHalper1) recent article "The Kalam cosmological argument: Critiquing a recent defence", also on the scientific case for the Kalam: philarchive.org/rec/HALTKC
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidDo Composite Objects Exist? | Dr. Eric OlsonMajesty of Reason2023-07-01 | Dr. Eric Olson joins me to discuss various puzzles of material constitution and composition. Do birds exist? Do tables? Do you?
00:00 A note 1:01 Intro and overview 2:01 Defining terms 8:34 Statue and clay 24:11 Sorites 31:00 Problem of the Many 37:30 Causal redundancy 41:50 Conclusion
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidTheism is rational, but Trent Horn is wrong and that upsets meMajesty of Reason2023-06-18 | Here I respond to Trent Horn for the 912th time, this time on the problem of evil and the evil God challenge.
0:00 Intro 3:52 Gratuitous evil 6:39 Evil requires God? 10:48 Back to gratuitous evil 15:04 The price of a lawful ecosystem? 19:47 Intuition, methodology, and dialectic 29:20 Clarifying gratuity 35:44 Reversing the modus ponens 45:05 Total evidence requirement 46:39 Theodicy: Original Sin 51:45 Theodicy: Free Will 59:42 Theodicy: Virtue 1:03:17 Intrinsic human dignity 1:06:20 Compensation in heaven? 1:08:37 Non-human animal suffering 1:17:39 Evil God Challenge 1:20:46 Privation theory of evil 1:27:49 Soteriological confusion 1:30:57 Conclusion
MENTIONED RESOURCES
(1) Trent’s video to which I’m responding (from @TheCounselofTrent): youtu.be/ZzM443aJbyM
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidHow to Analyze Arguments Like a PhilosopherMajesty of Reason2023-06-14 | Here's your ultimate step-by-step guide for analyzing and assessing any argument that comes your way.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidFrom Kalam to God?Majesty of Reason2023-06-02 | Must the cause of the universe be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal? No. Here's why.
Thanks to commenter Tym Miara for inviting this helpful clarification:
In the video, I argued that we cannot infer from the Kalam alone that the cause is spaceless. I began by using an example: “if, *for instance*, you’re only showing [in stage 1] that the past must be finite…” Using this example, I explained how we can’t then go on to infer that the cause of the beginning of (metric) time is spaceless.
I intended the points I made subsequently — about the epistemic possibility of there being some sort of space in which the first cause resides, etc. — to generalize to *other* ways of defending stage 1 of the Kalam, including the appeals to Big Bang cosmology. I wasn’t intending to impute to Craig the inference from ‘x causes the beginning of time’ to ‘x is therefore spaceless’. My point was, firstly, that *if* we only show in stage 1 that metric time is past-finite, *then* we cannot infer that the first cause(s) thereof is spaceless; and, furthermore, that the point about the epistemic possibility of some space in which the first cause(s) resides is a problem for *other* extant ways of defending stage 1, not just a way of defending stage 1 which only shows that the past must be finite. I used the finite-metric-past defense of stage 1 as an example to introduce the point which I intended to generalize more broadly.
So, then, the clarification is that I wasn't intending to say that Craig takes his spacelessness conclusion to be derived from the finitude of the past, though I can understand if what I said suggests that. I’m here canceling any such implicature, and explaining what I was intending to convey.
My point, instead, is precisely that *none* of the points in Craig's stage 1 case show that the cause is spaceless — even the points pertaining to Big Bang cosmology. They only show, at best, that the cause doesn't exist in the spatial framework of our local spatiotemporal manifold, i.e., the self-contained one that began to expand about 13.8 billion years ago. As I noted in the video, there may be a different space that exists causally prior to the beginning of metric time (and hence causally prior to the beginning of the spatial manifold associated with that metric time) and in which the cause resides. This space may be the same sort of space as our local spatiotemporal manifold's space (e.g., three-dimensional); or it may be some more exotic state space that various philosophers have proposed for the 'location' of the universal wavefunction; or it may be a higher dimensional spatial framework; and so on. The epistemic possibilities are boundless, and Craig — in claiming the cause must be spaceless — illegitimately assumes that none of these are the case. The crucial point is that they straightforwardly undercut the claim that the cause of our local spatiotemporal manifold must be spaceless, i.e., without any space.
And, of course, I think it's important to emphasize that Big Bang cosmology doesn't show that the universe, understood as all of physical reality, began to exist; for more on this, see Dr. Linford's dissertation here :)
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidThe Kalams Causal Principle: An AnalysisMajesty of Reason2023-05-20 | The Kalam’s causal principle says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. But should we accept this principle? That’s the topic of today’s (epic) video.
(3) My co-authored article “Branching actualism and cosmological arguments”, forthcoming in Philosophical Studies: philpapers.org/rec/SCHBAA-22
(4) Special thanks to Stephen Woodford from @rationalityrules not only for allowing me to re-use the relevant videos, but also for playing an integral role in making them stellar. Check out his channel (or my Kalam playlist) for the original videos and their reference documents! :)
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidYou MUST watch this video | Dr. Amy KarofskyMajesty of Reason2023-05-11 | Could anything have been otherwise? Amy Karofsky thinks not. In her view, absolutely everything is necessary. Today we discuss arguments for and against this view.
(3) Btw, you NEED to check out the website New Work in Philosophy! They have all the latest information about new work on the cutting edge of philosophy. Link: newworkinphilosophy.substack.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidOntological Arguments from Anselm to GödelMajesty of Reason2023-05-02 | Ontological arguments seek to prove God's existence from the armchair. But are they any good? Let's tour some prominent ontological arguments and some prominent objections to help us find out.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidIs the Future Open? | Dr. Patrick ToddMajesty of Reason2023-04-21 | I'm joined by Dr. Patrick Todd to discuss whether all future contingents are false. You can also win his book for FREE!
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidReligious Naturalism | Dr. Graham Oppy & Dr. Eric SteinhartMajesty of Reason2023-04-11 | What is religion? What is naturalism? Can naturalism and religion be combined? Is religious naturalism viable? I'm joined by Graham Oppy and Eric Steinhart to discuss these questions and more.
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidBirds dont exist, therefore Christianity is false | April FoolsMajesty of Reason2023-04-01 | Birds don't exist. If birds don't exist, then Christianity is false. So, Christianity is false.™ QED.
(2) More on arguments against the existence of birds: (i) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/ , (ii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/material-constitution/ , (iii) youtube.com/watch?v=07PZ1a-gZxw
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidThe Axiology of Theism | Dr. Ryan MullinsMajesty of Reason2023-03-19 | Should we want God to exist? Which model of God would result in the most valuable world? In this first ever MoR livestream, I’m joined by Dr. Ryan Mullins to talk about his recent contribution to this debate. And if you ask the best question during the live video, you’ll win a FREE BOOK!
During the livestream, whoever asks the best question about the axiology of theism or the axiology of models of God will win a free book! You need to begin your question with either "Question:" or "Q:" to be considered, and the question needs to be on topic. Ryan and I will determine the best question at the end of the stream. Whoever wins should email me at majestyofreason@gmail.com. Good luck!
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidHow to Research, Write, and Publish in PhilosophyMajesty of Reason2023-03-09 | Suan (@intellectualcatholicism) and I chat about philosophy research, writing philosophy papers, how to publish in philosophy, and so much more.
0:00 Intro and published work 4:42 Pre-writing and research 12:17 Writing 29:52 Submitting 38:01 Post-submission 49:34 Publishing books 54:43 Q&A 1:20:01 Bonus soccer
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmidA Users Guide to Bayes TheoremMajesty of Reason2023-02-24 | What is Bayes' Theorem? How is it used in philosophy, statistics, and beyond? How should it NOT be used? Welcome to the ultimate guide to these questions and more.
0:00 Intro and outline 3:10 What is Bayes’ Theorem? 4:50 Belief and credence 14:46 Interpretations of probability 24:52 Epistemic probability 28:32 Bayesian epistemology 30:50 Core normative rules 33:05 Propositional logic background 42:32 Kolmogorov’s axioms 54:25 Dutch Books 57:25 Ratio Formula 1:02:03 Conditionalization principle 1:10:47 Subjective vs. Objective Bayesianism 1:13:50 Bayes’ Theorem: Standard form(s) 1:39:25 Bayes’ Theorem: Odds form 1:53:06 Evidence 2:09:25 Visualizing Bayes’ Theorem 2:49:41 Common mistakes 2:49:53 Base rate fallacy 2:52:28 Evidence for H vs. Making H probable 2:53:43 Total evidence requirement 2:54:58 Fallacy of understated evidence 2:59:36 Confirmation is comparative 3:01:07 Evidential symmetry 3:07:56 Strength asymmetry 3:11:40 Falsifiability as a virtue 3:12:27 Likelihood ratio rigging 3:19:32 Conclusion and Resources
NOTES
(1) The argument I give around the ten-minute mark admittedly doesn't address the view that (i) credences don't exist, and yet (ii) we can still account for the relevant data about our doxastic lives by appeal to beliefs about probabilities. It also doesn't address the view that while credences exist and are distinct from beliefs, beliefs about probabilities suffice to account for the relevant data.
While I have independent reservations for these views, it's worth noting them nonetheless. The belief/credence part of the video was mainly an exercise in warming listeners up to talk of credences so they would be more receptive to the rest of the video. It's a necessary preamble to the main event: Bayes' Theorem. I grant that a proper defense of belief-credence dualism — and a proper defense of the overly-basic motivations I sketched at the ten-minute mark — would need to contend with these alternative proposals!
CORRECTIONS
(1) At 52:55, I meant to say that the SECOND claim entails the FIRST while the FIRST does not entail the SECOND. Oops!
(2) Thankfully, the audio improves at 28:32! Remind me to never record a solo presentation using Zoom…
(3) Here's an important clarification about the roommate/magical marker example given around 2:07:00. In the video, I was not clear about the content of the hypotheses in question and how this affects their likelihoods and priors. Here is how I should have spelled out the example.
Consider two hypotheses:
H1: My friend wrote on my board H2: My marker by itself wrote on my board
The data is:
D: "Don't forget to take out the trash!" is written on my board
Now, H1 renders D quite surprising, given that my friend knows all about my diligent habits of taking out the trash, etc. If H1 is true, he would most likely have written something on the board then erased it (since he knows I don't like him touching my board, etc.). And even if he didn't erase it, it would be very odd for him to write this given that he knows I'm super diligent about the trash.
But H2 renders D far, far more surprising. Of all the possible things the marker could conceivably have written on the board by magically floating upwards etc., only an absurdly small fraction are even coherent, let alone English words strung together to compose an intelligible, grammatical, contextually relevant English sentence.
Of course, H1 has higher prior than H2. But the point made in the video stands, since the likelihood of H1 (i.e., P(D|H1)) is very low, but it's still much greater than the likelihood of H2 (i.e., P(D|H2)), and hence data can still be evidence for a hypothesis even though the data is very surprising on that hypothesis.