When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People

become a sustaining member of the commonwealth  club for just 10 a month join today the commonwealth club i'm george hammond chair  of the humanities forum which organized tonight's   event um we are here uh in over 600 programs  that we've done since the pandemic began   which you can see online and on our youtube  channel and on our facebook page and uh today   we have two philosophers from the university  of wisconsin two professors a philosophy as   well and they've written a book when bad thinking  happens to good people we're going to take a nice   deep dive into what would make us think more  clearly something that obviously has uh been   on my mind and why i run the monday night  philosophy series at the commonwealth club   for a couple of decades so first of all welcome  very much to uh larry shapiro and steve nadler um   and thanks i'd like to plunge right in because you  start by saying that there's an epidemic of bad   thinking so steve when do you think that  that epidemic started uh well we could go   back through uh millennia of history because  there's always been bad thinking um people   who believe that other people should or could be  enslaved legitimately people who thought that the   uh earth was the center of the consciousness and  so on but the pandemic we especially have in mind   um really became alarming to us i'd say in  the last four or five years um with a seems   to be a proliferation of conspiracy theories about  stolen elections about climate change being a hoax   about vaccines being dangerous and caused by 5g  networks and so on and this proliferation i think   has become more dangerous and bad faking  has become more dangerous because of the   the ease with which people are overwhelmed by  information through social media and i think the   the credulity and the naivete with  which they simply take in information   and form beliefs which draws seem to  be rather irrational and irresponsible   is this part of the democratization of society and  culture and we don't have an elite running things   anymore and this is a kind of reaction against the  elite what do you what do you think larry i mean   do you think that this is part of everybody having  more power and more access you know people used to   say um i'd love to be able to read other people's  minds the internet now allows us to read other   people's minds and it probably doesn't look nearly  as attractive as it used to when it was a mystery   well i do think that uh with the advent of  social media things like facebook uh and also   right-wing conservative radio and television   the uh the amount of bad thinking out there is is  a lot greater than it used to be it's sort of like   uh you know we now have the uh delta variant of  covid to worry about and and social media is the   delta variant compared to the uh the the less  variant strains of covid that were out there   uh last year so what we see is uh with with things  like facebook and and other social media venues   it's a lot easier to spread bad thinking than  it than it used to be it used to be uh you know   a group of people might have believed something  on uh for not justified reasons but because this   group wasn't able to spread its its doctrines the  movement would eventually just sort of disappear   so i think a good example which um you mentioned  in your book um is that the earth is flat now   there is a society there the flat earth society  is still somewhat believes that but the amount   of people that accept this is extremely small  even even among the conspiracy theorists that's a   fairly small you know thing over to the side um  and i when i think about that i always think you   know there's there's no no idea ever disappears  from human life it just loses market share you   know and unfortunately earth is flat has is  really you know way down um and i i think   about for example people only 200 years ago said  women can't be educated you know or this group of   people can't be educated or slaves can't or at  least shouldn't be educated that kind of thing   and the 20th century has piled up evidence as you  guys would say piled up a lot of real evidence   but that was nonsense you know that was a form  of bad thinking as as you said at the beginning   steve so um let's talk about the earth as flat  as an example of what you mean by bad thinking   um because it's pretty neutral at this point um  and maybe the least controversial thing we can   talk about and we'll talk about more controversial  things soon but but it's a good example because   you're not talking about bad and good thinking  in terms of the religious idea about good and bad   you're talking about it's ineffective or it's  not rational et cetera et cetera so steve you   want to talk about how that applies yeah by good  and bad thinking we mean both uh good and bad as   rational evaluations so a belief can be rational  or irrational and we also mean it in moral terms   uh you're absolutely right it's not a religious  notion that's why we don't use good and evil   and by bad thinking as a rational phenomenon what  we mean is forming your beliefs in an irrational   manner that is not forming them on the basis of  evidence that supports the truth of the beliefs   you may have very good reasons for believing  what you believe whatever it may be whether   you find comfort in the belief that the  earth is flat or that's what you've always   been told throughout your life and these are  reasons why you have come to hold the belief   but they're not what philosophers call epistemic  reasons that support the truth of the belief   and bad thinking is when you form your beliefs  in this epistemically irresponsible way you don't   tailor them to the evidence and bad thinking  becomes a kind of epistemic stubbornness when   you continue to hold these beliefs in  the face of evidence that they are false   now i would suggest and this will be where  we start to enter the controversial area   that there's not a great deal of qualitative  difference between the bad thinking that goes   behind flat earth thinking and the bad thinking  that goes behind let's say conspiracy theories   that uh trump's election was stolen by  a deep state and by a cabal of democrats   who have a child pornography ring engage in  cannibalistic activities right um there's   no reason to for thinking that that belief is  somehow a little bit more reasonable than the   flat earth belief they're both great instances of  bad thinking of people um not behaving rationally   let's use that example again the earth is  flat to to compare with what you just said   about the current thing because if you went  back 3000 years and said is it irrational to   think the earth is flat well most people would  say the evidence that i see with my senses is   that it is but then there were sight you know  philosophers and and scientists in the beginning   of that in ancient greece that looked at it  and couldn't tell by the shadows and at noon   and in different places and there's a certain  amount of evidence the amount of evidence that   maybe two or three percent it seems like uh  that there's something wrong with that theory   and then they use that but but by the time a  lot of people think that everyone thought the   earth was flat until columbus sailed but that's  not accurate that's not scientifically accurate   there was a guy in in the third century bc  that figured out the circumference based   upon the idea the earth was a sphere he got  the circumference within a thousand miles   uh you know 24 25 000 miles uh harassed the  wrestling and so they already had enough facts   to make accurate observations or or predictions  about the earth now we have all the pictures   from space and everything else and so the  evidence is piled up so that it's like 99   clear to everybody other than your observation  when you walk out the door and it looks flat that   the earth has a sphere so when we're talking about  these conspiracy theories you know so that that's   what happened to the flat earth and even then you  have people who with 99 of the facts against them   uh we'll go into that a little bit later this  confirmation bias idea that you you talk about   but if you if you talk about that in relationship  to what's going on with these conspiracy theories   they they tend to pick one or two or three or four  facts throw them together my favorite i don't know   if you've seen that one recently but my favorite  is this guy mcafee uh the guy who died in the the   he was a software guy and he died in the spanish  prison a few days later the condo in florida went   down that everybody heard about that collapsed  and a day after that there was a conspiracy   that he had hidden his secret information in  that condo and so the cia had to destroy that   building in order to in order to get rid of that  secret information now that that kind of thinking   is so fascinating now why don't you explain uh  go ahead uh stephen why don't you explain you   know yes there's two or three facts there but  there's like a hundred uh false assumptions so   why is that that doesn't work well it doesn't work  because that's just not how at least logic and   rationality um should lead us to form our beliefs  you don't simply take a few convenient facts   and decide oh yeah that works somehow that that  coheres with some superstitions i have or some   prejudices i may have about the uh the american  government and i think that's how people do seem   to be um acting in these irrational ways they  they come to the facts with preconceived opinions   and rather than modifying those pre-preconceived  opinions in the face of evidence new evidence   they uh twist everything around and rather  make the evidence uh the new evidence   fit their preconceived opinions and voila you have  of an irrational belief one that's not justified   but there are objective standards for when beliefs  or propositions are truly justified it's not a   purely subjective matter of fact there's there  may never be a point in which you can say that   this or that belief is absolutely confirmed and  scientists no longer you know after the 17th   century scientists gave up for the most part the  search for absolute indubitable 100 certain truths   but that doesn't mean there's not a spectrum  and at one of the spectrum there are those   beliefs which receive sufficient justification  to make it rational or reasonable to believe them   yeah it's fascinating because people of course  want certainty and i think the feynman the the uh   physicist uh made just you just could get to live  with uncertainty that's the way things are but   because people prefer certainty i think it makes  it easier for them to choose so i have a question   for you larry what are the facts i mean there  are facts that make people distrust governments   there are facts that make people distrust doctors  there are facts that make people distrust certain   things so there there's something there just like  there there was the viewpoint that that when you   look at the earth it looks flat to you um so how  do you take them from how do you take people from   the facts that they rely on to piling  up all the other facts that tell them   but that's not the right perspective or that's  not a full perspective part of the answer   to your question george is going to have to  involve a psychologist i think so philosophers   are good at diagnosing when reasoning goes  wrong and why it goes wrong and the psychologist   specializes in trying to understand why  people come to adopt the beliefs that they do   so the the philosopher might look at the flat  earther or the vaccine conspiracy theorist person   or the the insurrectionist and say if we look at  the evidence and we think about the conclusion you   want to reach on the basis of this evidence we'll  find out that that conclusion is well not support   is not well supported by that evidence and so  the philosopher's job is a kind of normative   enterprise the philosopher is saying what you  ought to or you should believe whereas the   psychologist has a role here too because the  psychologist can tell us why it is people are   inclined to adopt beliefs that the philosopher  judges not to be justified can i if i could add   a point to that when larry says that what the  philosophers do is tell you what to believe   it's not that we tell you what substantive  things to believe that you should believe   this and you should believe that but rather what  the philosophers give you are tools for deciding   when you ought to believe that something that  is when you have sufficient justification   for believing it now george you referred  also to facts and that these people have   these facts and that they form their bases on  these facts how do we explain how do we go about   disputing with them what the facts  are but i think in many of these cases   what they take to be facts are not in fact facts  that is they have certain beliefs about what is   the case when in fact these beliefs are false now  it's there is no subjectivity about this there are   facts that these philosophers still continue to  believe in these facts yeah unlike perhaps say   other humanities disciplines i don't know but very  often these false beliefs these irrational beliefs   are formed on uh the wrong basis because while  the person may believe that they have the facts   um our job may be to show them that what they  take to be facts that is their false beliefs   about what are the facts are in fact false  and that these are not truly facts well i   i agree with that i i think when i was talking  about facts i meant something very general like   as a government official ever lied to us but we  know that but that's not right yeah that's what   i meant by and therefore they can they can  jump from that to and now they did it again   so that was the cut yeah go ahead larry yeah yeah  i could understand why some people are skeptical   of uh of things like vaccines i mean  especially members of some communities   like the african-american community it's  hard to forget things like tuskegee right   but we now have i mean think about think  about what would have to be true if   vaccines were in fact not safe what would have to  be true is that all these independent organ all   these independent health organizations all these  independent pharmaceutical companies many of which   are in competition with each other and are looking  for reasons not to agree with each other there's   a consensus among all of these different groups  and to think that all of them are making up data   and all the millions of trials have not  actually occurred or been misrepresented   at that point it's overwhelmingly unlikely that  the vaccines are not safe so i can understand   skepticism among some members of some communities  who have been harmed by the u.s government in the   past but that's not a good enough reason to  ignore the present mountains of data that   speak to the safety of the vaccine it's one of  the ironies i think is that is that people who are afraid that the government is doing this  and are afraid from the conspiracies actually   have a higher opinion of the intelligence and  abilities of the elite that are running things   than the people who accept it because they they  believe that they can work together in these ways   which anybody who has worked in a university at a  department at a at a government facility or a big not maybe not having organization experience or at  least they have a higher opinion about how people   can pull things off um than the people who who  agree that they're probably doing it accurately   and the facts are lined up but i think one of the  points that you made about the vaccine i think is   very useful and that a year and a half ago when  they were first getting started skepticism was   far more reasonable than it is now with a  couple hundred million people here having   been vaccinated and and probably a billion in the  world um and and we're not dropping like flies uh   as a result and that would certainly be facts that  would pile up but as you said yeah go ahead larry   uh stephen yeah so george the point you just made  about the uh perhaps high opinion and that these   conspiracy theorists must have about government  officials and so on that points to another aspect   of irrationality sometimes it's not simply failing  to tailor your beliefs to the evidence at hand   but it's inconsistency in your set of your beliefs  so on the one hand in order to believe that these   government officials are involved in a gross  um and malignant effort to uh either kill us or   subdue us that may be inconsistent with other  things that you may believe about these people   and one of the goals of good thinking is to ensure  that our beliefs cohere not just with the facts   with the evidence that we form our beliefs in a  rational way but that our beliefs themselves uh   are internally coherent that is we don't believe  both that one thing is true and that something   else is not true when in fact or something else is  true when in fact they can't both be true at the   same time well let's before we go any deeper into  this let's talk about beliefs all by themselves   we believe things i mean obviously there's only  a few things that can be proven and they're in   math and in a few other areas and almost nothing  else in science is proven but there's you know a   great deal of evidence or there's you know and how  reliable it is and that's what you guys have been   working on what you write about how reliable is  the evidence how reliable is the logic behind the   theories and the evidence um but it's interesting  to me because we do have end up having to rely on   our beliefs even though our beliefs don't change  reality you know whatever the reality is we have   whatever our beliefs are about the  reality doesn't change what the reality is   it might change our behavior you know and that's  one of the things you're saying it leads to bad   acting um but it doesn't change the reality itself  so um why don't you uh why don't we move to say uh   some of the observations that people have made  you had a great quote from from francis bacon   uh larry in in the book um which which explained  from 400 years ago what this bad thinking kind   of is like and maybe you can you don't have  to read it or anything but just what did he   say 400 years ago that made it fairly clear that  sounds like it was you know applicable to today   uh bacon was identifying two related sorts of  of issues that bad thinkers tend to exhibit   one is a confirmation bias uh and and by  that what what steve and i mean is that   people tend to look at only the source of evidence  that supports their belief rather than thinking   about evidence that might run contrary to their  belief so for instance if if you're wondering   whether the vaccine was dangerous let's say you'd  only focus on those very few cases where someone   might have had a bad reaction to a vaccine and  you wouldn't think about the billion other cases   in which people showed no no reaction at all so  confirmation thinking uh the confirmation bias   is biased to ignore all the evidence that  speaks against your belief and take seriously   only that evidence that supports your belief  that confirms your belief and another sort of   uh related issue is that uh and this takes us to  uh the philosopher karl popper lots of people will only think about the sorts of  evidence that well lots of people will   adopt a view according to which their theory  their hypothesis about the world can be made   to fit with any sort of evidence at all evidence  that you would ordinarily think would be contrary   to the belief is somehow adopted as just another  reason to believe what you want to believe so   horoscopes are a great example of this where  the astrology the astrologer tells you that uh   you're going to have a wonderful day at work and  uh it ends up at the end of the day that you've   been fired and you think my astrologer misled me  but lots of astrologers would say no in fact you   did have a wonderful day at work you were fired  of course but this is this is great because you   now have an opportunity to look for other jobs  which will be even better for you in the future   and so so not only do we have people who  ignore the evidence that uh runs contrary   to what they believe and and focus only on  the supporting evidence we also have people   misinterpreting or interpreting in a light  favorable to their own views the sorts of   data that should be taken to be uh contrary to  their views yeah it's very interesting i think   why i mentioned the thing about belief  before that a lot of people don't understand   uh what what's reliable evidence it comes from and  so and so forth because they think of proof either   scientists are out proving things but that's  that's a very very small part of what's possible   and you you talk about the the logic of deduction  that actually works in this way or moves as close   to being very reliable but the more interesting  forms of logic are the ones that can't get there   um and and so one of the things that you mentioned  is that a big part of most theories is that you   have to be you have to prove that they're  false or or demonstrate that they're false   that can be done much more easily than they're  accurate you can get reliable evidence that   supports them but it's hard to prove that they're  true um but you can prove that they're false and   uh that's that's one of the they had a great  game in there about um four cards with the the   odd number and the alphabet uh i thought that  was very good because people will pick the thing   that looks like it's going to prove it when that's  just one example and when i read that i thought of   uh one of my favorite you know examples of this  from my real life i was at a dinner in washington   dc with a bunch of lawyers and there was a labor  department lawyer who was the wife of somebody   else that i knew and she said um there are there  are only everyone only has one or two children she she believed that nobody had more than two  children and someone's and someone said the   reason it came up is because i have 11 brothers  and sisters and i happened to mention it and   she said i don't believe you um and and she said  there's only one or two children and there was a   guy at the table who had four children i got him  to say no i have four children she said i don't   believe you everybody that i know has either  zero one or two children and therefore there   can't be more and so i said to her i said you're  in the labor department i said what's the average   number of children in america uh per per you know  family 2.1 something like that i said doesn't   doesn't that mean that somebody has to have more  than two and she said no that it doesn't i sorry and she was and i i thought maybe she  was drunk but she wasn't even drunk   so people can develop those ideas based just on  their own experiences um and then they as you said   that's that's so interesting that you can just  eliminate all evidence to the contrary uh people   should be a very good example of the person whose  belief system is inconsistent on the one hand she   believes that nobody has more than two children  on the other hand she believes that the average   number of children per family in this country is  2.1 well you can't believe both of those things at   the same time no no but she did well at it yeah  and i thought you should go back to statistics   it could be that she was almost right um  there's only one one individual has about   10 billion children because everyone else has has  two or one so so talk about how people who who   feel mean because it seems to me that what you  can do with your book and what you're trying to   do with the book is to take the people who want to  think rationally and give them the tools to do it   not not to help the people who don't want to think  freshly or or don't have any faith in it at all   um and and so explain the difficulties about uh  induction by enumeration larry you want to do that yeah so we in induction is this method of  reasoning in which we examine a small sample   of something and what we do on the basis of our  examination of of this sample of things we make   some claim about items of the same kind that fall  outside the sample that we've actually observed   so uh you know imagine you have a a box of  chocolates and uh you bite into one and there's a   truffle in the center and you've got another  hundred boxes of chocolates in this uh another   hundred chocolates in this box and at this point  you're you're not in a good position to say that   every chocolate in the box has has a truffle  center because you've only sampled one of them and   this is a pretty obvious point i think  everyone is familiar with the idea that   uh you can't make a conclusion about a  large class of things on the basis of the   examination of just a few of them but but what  we see is that people don't understand the the   sort of implications of of this error and  we've discussed in the book a case where um small schools are being promoted  because it's thought that small schools   have a greater proportion of excellent students  than large schools do and this is a small sample   a small school provides you with a small  sample of of students and when you're looking   at such a small sample you're you're risking  error because samples of a small size can be   misrepresentative so think about this if i flip a  coin twice and get heads each time i flip the coin   that's a hundred percent heads but there's nothing  too unusual about that we've only flipped the coin   twice and each time we flip it there's a 50 chance  that it's going to land heads if i flip the coin   100 times that's a much larger sample and if i  still get only heads then we have reason to think   that the coin is biased it's not a fair coin so  if we get all heads with two flips we shouldn't   jump to any conclusions about where the  co whether the coin is fair or biased   if we flip it 100 times well then we have greater  evidence that it's biased if we've come up heads   each time well in the small school situation  if we look at a school with only a few students   that's like a few coin flips and it might be that  in a school with a few students we have a greater   representation of excellent students than we would  on average but if we also look at schools that   have a greater proportion of bad students we'll  find they're small schools too because it's like   flipping tails twice with those two coins you'll  you'll see an over-representation of good students   in in small schools and an over-representation  of bad students in small schools and so this   kind of sampling error that we see in cases of  induction by enumeration can lead you astray   because you you you're not uh making the correct  judgment about what's actually representative of   the sample when you're looking at only a small  sample george i like the way you led up to that   question though by focusing on who this book is  supposed to be directed at because there's a bit   of a paradox here um it seems that the people who  most need lessons in good thinking are the people   who are least likely to read the book so you're  absolutely right on one hand it's for people who   would like themselves to become better thinkers or  to you know at least to see what philosophy can do   for them as thinkers as reasoners but i think our  other also hope is if you know even if we give up   on those people who are the most guilty of bad  thinking those most the most irrational conspiracy   theorists out there the people who all lined up  um and assaulted the u.s capitol on january 6.   um if even if they're not likely to read  the book there are people out there who know   people of that sort like your friend who works for  the labor department right and hopefully they'll   find this book useful for approaching their  friends and their family and other acquaintances   who are guilty of outrageously bad thinking  and hopefully bring them a little bit closer   to a more rational life you stole my next question  so that was what i was gonna say you know that was   perfect because um i think you know that that's  what's most useful about this besides thinking   yourself more clearly is to understand why other  people get it wrong and maybe have a little bit   more empathy for their situation as well because  even if you can't reach them you at least kind of   know why they're doing what they're doing and and  i think it's a great example at the risk of of you   know helping the conspiracy theorists i i'd love  if you stephen you mentioned in this small schools   thing bill gates spent how much money on this  and maybe that's why he needs to also you know   uh make us all eat these vaccines and make a lot  of money on that too since he's not rich enough   but but he spent 2 billion so somebody like bill  gates spent 2 billion based on that thing so why   might you tell that part of the story i think  that's that was fascinating uh larry i think   you're more familiar with that case than i am  okay yeah well bill gates um had this initiative   to support small schools the idea was go to a a  town or community where there's a large school   break that school into smaller schools and then  we'll have uh the kinds of attention lavished   on our students that uh gates and and many of  his advisors i mean i'm sure gates was just   following uh policymakers um and so the thought  was we convert large schools into small schools   and small schools breed excellent students but  as as i was just explaining small schools also   contain lots of unrepresented amounts of poor  students the the the bad thinking involved in   cases like this is that you see a pattern such  that uh such as you'll see a lot of good students   in a small school and you automatically  jump to the conclusion that there's some   causal relationship between the size of the school  and the quality of the student but in fact there's   no causal relationship at all and you're better  off sending your child it turns out to a larger   school because they'll have more opportunities and  they'll have a better selection of better teachers   so um when you start seeing these patterns  that exhibit themselves in small samples like   two heads in a row if you automatically jump to  a causal explanation you're you're exhibiting bad   thinking yeah i thought that was very clearly done  in your book i mean very very good examples about   just the idea and people can understand that  better with polling and stuff like that the polls   are not are not a wide enough sample or you  know they try to do fewer people but but at   least distribute the variety of people they're  talking to to get closer to an answer but how   many people do you need before you get there  um and and anything that's too small a sample   is going to have a bias either one way or  the other off of the norm right yeah yeah   that's right so that's interesting now there's  another one that you talked about base rate   uh the base rate uh problem uh yeah is that  stephen you want to talk about that one   i'll you can do that one two that one okay yeah  uh so the basic idea behind a base rate is that   there are some things in the world that are  just unlikely so it's it's unlikely that   that you're going to catch a certain disease  or it's unlikely that you're going to see   an albino crow so we use the term base rate to  talk about just the frequency of certain events   in the world so the base rate of an albino crow  i don't know what that is say it's you know one   in a million or something like that and this  just means basically that if you have someone   saying claiming that they saw a white crow  you have to think about the frequency of crows   white crows albino crows in the world and  because the frequency of albino crows is so small   that means that if someone claims to have seen  a white crow they need a lot better evidence   to convince you that they really did just because  white crows are so rare if they saw if they said   they saw a black crow it wouldn't even occur  to you to question how reliable this person   is because most crows are black but if they see  a white crow it's incumbent on them to convince   you that they're correct the evidence they need to  provide you that they actually saw that white crow   has to be a lot higher a lot greater than the  evidence they need to provide you if they saw   say they saw a black crow and as far as conspiracy  theories goes this this applies in the following   sort of way conspiracy theories are the most  unlikeliest of things i have a sister-in-law   who i kept in mind when i read this book who  believes things like aliens built the pyramids   now it's true that there are questions about  how the pyramids were actually constructed   uh although i just read an interesting  piece in the new yorker about some guy who's   devised a machine that's going to be  that he guys could have lifted the   the huge rocks but um i read that too so it's  yeah it's so unlikely that some alien civilization   uh first of all develop the technology for  space travel this is not easy and then use their   technology their advanced technology to travel  to earth and to help egyptians build pyramids   that is just such an unlikely improbable event  that to think that the pyramids are actually built   by aliens rather than say by some technology  that we don't presently understand that was   available to the ancients that's an example in  which we can think about things like base rate   fallacies because what's being claimed is so  improbable that the evidence that we ought to   demand before we believe it before we believe  that aliens built these pyramids should be much   greater than what any of these conspiracy  theorists has provided us with yeah it's um it's just too interesting to think you know for  some people that it would have to come but your   point about the aliens i mean it's a little bit  like if you have a whole bunch of ants living in   your backyard and that makes you the alien and  do you ever go and help them build their home   or you know what i mean it's like why would you  why would you spend your time on if you had the   technology to come here why would you spend your  time on that i mean it could be some kind of   nation building but but you know uh americans have  learned that nation building doesn't work too well   i'm sure the aliens if they can come here must  have at least figured that one out either um yeah   but one thing about your white crows i don't have  to throw in something i have a friend who lives in   olney illinois and they have white squirrels  like thousands of white squirrels in olden   illinois and that's known for that and it's just  weird it's an unusual location down in a breeding   population of albino breeding population of white  squirrels has been there for a long time and it it   that's their claim to fame this is a small town  because it's just so unusual uh but anytime you go   there you can see them because there's so many of  them um so they could learn they could develop if   they only lived and only they could develop a bias  in favor of white squirrels versus all other ones   and i think that's a good example of what  you're saying because if you if you never left   town and you only saw white scrolls you would be  surprised to see that that's actually the minority   right um sampling bias the sampling bias so  steve one of the things that you're talking   about uh near the beginning of the book is that  there's different kinds of arts you know there   there's there's the and you mentioned the  prudential art you mentioned the epistemic   art thought and the moral art and i i thought it  would be good to kind of explain the difference   between those things because when you were talking  earlier you said this is how we should think but   you don't mean that people have to think it's just  that this is a more effective way of thinking so   maybe explain that uh role of the philosopher and  explaining things yeah so a prudential art um and   i think everybody is familiar with this um from  their everyday experience is really an art that's   conditional if you want something um here's  the best way to go about doing it so let's say   um i need uh i need some oranges to make  orange juice well in that case i ought and   there's no oranges at home then i ought to  go to the market and pick up some oranges   similarly if i want to run a sub  five minute mile i ought to train   if i don't train i'm not going to get  what i want so there's an element of   of counsel or prudence here these are what the  philosopher the 18th century german philosopher   emmanuel kant called hypothetical imperatives  they don't command you to do something period   they command you to do something only if you want  something else so if i want to become healthy i   ought to not eat 18 bags of cheetos that's  a potential ought a epistemic art is not as   you said it's not saying you have to believe this  you have to believe this particular truth or this   particular proposition but rather it's an art that  says given the evidence in favor of this belief   you are being somehow epistemically irresponsible  if you don't believe it the evidence points to   the truth of the belief and on the assumption  that you're interested in having true beliefs   you ought to believe this because the evidence  points to the truth of that belief finally um   moral arts are arts that are commands to perform  or refrain from performing certain actions if i   say do not lie do not steal do not kill um  those are moral arts and here too you can   think of moral arts kant thought of  them as categorical imperatives they are   commands that are unconditional do not kill period  it doesn't matter what you like to do it doesn't   matter what's in your own best interest it doesn't  matter what gives you pleasure do not kill that's   a categorical or absolute moral odd you ought  not to do that and not even take into account   the fact that it might be in the other person's  best interest in few cases where it is correct   it's it's absolutely unconditional but other  people think that moral arts are conditional um   for example if i were a utilitarian i would say  that what makes an action something i ought or   ought not to do depends upon the conditions namely  will this action lead to some increase in overall   good let's say the good is happiness and i believe  that moral actions should increase happiness   then if this action under these circumstances  increases happiness i ought to do it because   it will get me in a way it's sort of a it's  like a prudential art except in a very moral   context because it affects the well-being um  uh and or suffering of other sentient creatures   right uh and that um the basis for that  morality or ethics of course mostly has   been religion but there's also a philosophical  basis for making these ethical decisions too   in your case in the case you just mentioned you  take into account other people's interests in   addition to your own or or identify your own  interests with their interests you you want   people around you to be happier rather than than  less happy that kind of thing it may be that the   even the utilitarian recognizes there's  at least one categorical ought namely   acts in such a way that you increase the general  level of happiness yeah then all other actions   become um conditional odds will this action  increase happiness if so then you ought to do it   and maybe one of the other imperatives should  be that that you think conditionally that is   that that you're not thinking that you have  the absolute final answer um but you think   that all the evidence and reliable evidence is  here just like the scientific attitude towards   science you say this is the best possible theory  right now the most internally consistent the   most externally consistent with the evidence we  have but we've noticed that this keeps changing   every 20 30 40 years with the speed with which  we're going and so i i will hold to this until   true and otherwise or have something better to  think about but i think if you just have that that   small amount of uncertainty um you're in a much  better situation for learning and improving but   again we go back to uncertainty versus  certainty people don't like that uncertainty   yeah if if what we call epistemic stubbornness is  a vice the corresponding virtue would be epistemic   humility and epistemic responsibility but also  epistemic humility um always recognizing that   you could be wrong that maybe you're justified  in the belief you hold given the evidence you   have at hand but for all you know around the  corner is evidence that may falsify that belief   right well let's talk about falsifying  beliefs again a little bit more because   i think that this is where um outside thought  is is more convincing to people than than a lot   of other areas because i think if you can  show that that belief really is is false   then then you have a much more powerful  persuasion tool so uh larry do you want   to talk a little bit about how we can do that uh  yeah so let's let's go back to flat earth uh so   as as you pointed out george there's there's  still people who believe that the earth is flat   i remember my my daughter convinced me to watch  a documentary uh that followed a group of um flat   earthers to their society meeting i can't remember  what it was called but these people had um   developed all sorts of theories to try to explain  the sorts of observations that most of us take   to be establishing uh the the truth that the earth  is spherical rather than flat and so they were   they were there their views were what popper  would have called unfalsifiable no matter what   evidence you point to them and say you know  well well look when we go up into space it   certainly looks like the earth is around and  they'd say well that's because the earth is   actually plate shaped and you're only seeing one  one side of the earth and and not the other and   then this this thing has to spin as the satellites  go around it in order to show only its flat   face and and things like that but the thing to do  in situations like that i think is say to these   flat earthers or or whatever group you're  interested in having a conversation with say   what is the experiment what is the observation  that would convince you that you're wrong   and if they're unable to provide you with a  single observation that would convince them   that they were wrong then they're not playing  fairly uh they're not allowing their their theory   to be put to the test i think everyone  sees the value of testing a theory   but in order to test a theory what that means  is you need to make some that theory needs to   generate some sorts of predictions that can be  either true or false if it doesn't generate any   kind of claim that can be tested for its  truth it's impossible to test that theory   you had a great example first you you quoted  carl popper in your book about that and   saying i think it was him that said um that  scientific theories uh are falsifiable that's   that's their difference between a scientific  theory and and uh something like astrology a   pseudoscientist or religious faith that's right  yeah so um but one of the examples that was used   was that einstein predicted in his theory that  that the light would be bent around the sun right   that's right according to relativity theory um i  think it's it's valuable to point out that there   could be other reasons why light bends around  the sun in addition to the one that's in his   theory and that's why his theory isn't proven by  this fact this is a fact that supports his theory   but doesn't prove it i think that's the logical  point because there could be another 10 reasons   or 15 reasons why light bends when it goes around  the sun we think that has no mass what if it has   a small amount of mass no neutrinos didn't didn't  have any mass uh just until the 90s but then then   they found that they did for for particular  reasons so if there was mass in in photons   um then the sun the sun's mass could also bend  it now the way to test that theory against other   theory would be to know do the mathematics and  say what would each of those theories predict   and then what is the actual number going around it  et cetera et cetera but i think it's important you   know for people to to understand that einstein's  theory is in spite of the fact that it has been   supported by that kind of reliable evidence  and everyone was for good reason excited about   that it doesn't mean yet that it's proven to  be true for all time until because there's   other possible explanations um and and scientists  stick with what the most obvious or at least the   most reliable theory is now um but if we if we  talk about the the uh i mean i'd like to kind   of go back to the the moral oughts too because  you're you're in you're talking about him stephen i'd like it if you could kind of draw a  distinction between what most people think   of moral odds like thou shalt not steal and  so on as a religious commandment and why it   is that that philosophers still talk about it  as a moral ought in spite of the fact that they   don't think of it as a commandment from god  well you could think of a lot of the commands   that a person observes in his or her life as  religiously grounded if you ask a person well why   should i not kill they might say well because god  said so and that's fine if you believe in god and   you think god issues commands about our behavior  um then you would think that the justification   for either doing or not doing something lies  in god's command that's fine that's religion   or what i would call piety and i think it's really  a gross mistake to confuse piety with morality if   you do something or refuse to do something because  god has commanded or forbidden you from doing it   that's acting according to god's  will that's piety that's not morality   whereas if you do something because you recognize  through some value principles that the action   is right or wrong and you can defend those  principles not on religious grounds which i   think is the mistake and i'll explain why in a  second but if you can defend those principles   or values with reasons then what you have  is a kind of moral system which justifies   how you behave or refuse to behave now the reason  why i think it's a mistake why people are engaged   in a kind of a mistake a philosophical a very  serious philosophical mistake when they think that   the ground of morality is god's will is because  these same people also believe that god is good and therefore if god is good then whatever god  commands is our moral duty the problem with   thinking both that morality derives from what  god commands and that god is good is that if   morality is purely a function of what god wills  then there are no standards that we can appeal   to to judge the goodness of god because everything  is simply the result of god's will and so to say   god commanded x therefore x is good is a trivial  claim because what if god had commanded not x but   god says do not kill therefore do not not killing  is good but what if god had commanded yeah kill   kill it will then that would be good and so the  whole notion of morality becomes meaningless   and just reduces to piety so if you think that  morality comes from god's will but you also want   to say that god is good you're again once again  inconsistent you cannot say both that god is good   and that morality derives from god's will because  the judgment that god is good must involve   appealing to some objective standard of goodness  independent of god's will and we won't mention   the fact that in nature if god is responsible  for nature that thou shalt kill is probably a   a commandment in nature because it's happening  you know all the time everyone's killing all the   animals are killing each other all the time and  etc so so they the idea that that it could go the   other way i just wanted to mention because that  was a great argument um and it also was a perfect   lead into the end of the book about socrates  because you have in there uh you you discuss his   uh dialogue about piety and how the person who  was pious who wanted to to uh bring his father   to justice really didn't know what he was thinking  who who would like to cover the the socrates uh   thing i call that steve cover that yeah okay yeah  the uh that's from the dialogue that plato wrote   called the euthyphro and it's a really interesting  dialogue both for the issue i just discussed   that is something good because the gods love  it or do the gods love it because it's good   and socrates points out the fallacy of thinking  that something can be good if the gods love it   if you also think the gods are good but the  other lesson of that dialogue and this is a   lesson you know many of plato's dialogues end  on an inconclusive note there's no answer to the   question of what is piety or what is knowledge  or what is justice but what they usually end up   showing is that people don't really know what they  think they know and this goes back to the point we   were discussing before about epistemic humility  socrates was extremely annoying um and he was   he would go around athens um pointing out to  people that they really are not as knowledgeable   and expert as they think they are especially  with respect to the most important things in life   justice beauty um right and wrong and good and  bad and i think the the real lesson here of these   sorts of dialogues is that um first of all you  should think about what you're doing this was   the uh in the euthyphro dialogue you throw is a  young man who's prosecuting his father for murder   now it may be that that's the right thing to do it  may be that it's the wrong thing to do that's not   what's at issue here socrates doesn't care whether  it's right or wrong to prosecute his father what   he cares about is whether euthyphro knows that  it's the right thing to do because if euthyphro   is acting in such a way that he's performing  something doing something without really knowing   the moral character of the action he's performing  then he's behaving irresponsibly mm-hmm yeah um   that that dialogue and of course as you said he  always ends uh or most often ends inconclusively   because seems to me his goal is just get people  think more clearly rather than to get them to   think a particular way or another i think about  to think about themselves you know the real   lesson here is uh what he calls the examined  life to think about the world and about other   people but especially to think about yourself  and to examine yourself and reflect on what you   do and do not know there's a good example in  that um in your book about the delphic oracle   now socrates makes the assumption or operates  on the assumption that the delphic oracle   is correct but of course it's a little like  astrology um and so so how does he how does he   the delphic oracle tells someone from from athens  that socrates is the most wise man in athens   and that information gets back to socrates and  socrates ponders it for a decade or so and then   comes up with an answer as to why that might  actually be true because you can't just say   you're just wrong even that was his original thing  so why don't you tell that story yeah oracles and   oracles are never wrong oh sorry what do you  want to talk about socrates on that one larry   no steve steve can handle socrates okay great uh  oracles are never wrong um this is a lesson that   we see in uh herodotus's history of the persian  wars um the uh a i i think it's the king of lydia   decides he's going to attack the kingdom or  the empire the persian empire so he goes to   the oracle to see whether it's a good thing to  do and the oracle says if you attack that empire   uh uh if you attack a great empire will be  destroyed right and so the king says oh well   i'm gonna go ahead and attack because that's green  light in fact he attacked and he loses miserably   and what happens is oh yeah kingdom is destroyed  his own so oracles are never wrong you just have   to know how to interpret them and so what socrates  did going back to what larry was describing as   as good scientific method is he tests he tests  the theory am i indeed the wisest and the only   way to test it is empirically let's go around and  see what it is that people do and do not know so   first he comes to the conclusion that in a certain  sense he is not wise because there are people who   are better at making barrels there are people who  are better weavers uh there are people who are   better at war and so if by wisdom you mean a kind  of specialized or technical skill socrates says   yeah i'm not wise i'm not as wise as these people  but he also recognizes through these examinations   that people not only have this technical know-how  but they think they have other knowledge what in   fact which in fact they don't have they think that  uh an individual might think that their political   skill um allows them also to be an expert in  other things um and especially experts in justice   and and the arts and so on and so socrates  concludes that true wisdom consists not in   having this little skill in this or that domain  not in being a good horse person or a good archer   but it's really a transformation in the notion of  sofia or wisdom and saki says true human wisdom   consists in knowing about what you know and  he of course famously said i know that i know   nothing now that could mean that i know one thing  namely i don't know nothing i don't know anything   so nobody else knows anything but i at least know  one thing namely that i know nothing therefore i'm   wiser than all of them um i mean that's cute but i  think what he really means is that i'm wiser than   everybody because i have the proper assessment  of myself as a knower i don't think i know when i   don't know and that makes me wiser than everybody  else yeah and it seems to me that it's that kind   of attitude towards yourself is what would save  you from both vanity and and humility and that   you're just you're right in the middle around you  you see who you are yeah you see your limitations   and that seems to be a an easier way to live  life and and we haven't talked about the   practicalities of this that this this creates  um good thinking or more intelligent rational   thinking creates a happier life for the people  who do it um but we have i'd like to go to the   questions oh one one more aside you talked  about the the issue about god and his rules   and but he's the source of them so they have to be  good i i think just to to help people understand   the other time at that time most of the kings  did exactly that whatever they said was the   law and and it didn't matter how rational it was  or how irrational it was or how personal it was   everyone just had to adjust to the king's rules  um and and the kings all told everybody that   they had the divine right to do this um and  uh and we are at least a little bit away from   that thinking uh we certainly haven't gotten over  it all together because we distinguish between   what's legal and what's moral if you thought  that what's moral is simply what the law demands   then you'd have no basis for criticizing a law as  unjust or immoral but we do think that laws should   be subject to that kind of moral criticism so they  must be very distinct we've gotten the idea that   maybe we're making this up as we go along and and  we have a right to criticize what we're making up   uh that's what seems to me a little bit so we have  several questions first thank you very much um   so george steffner has asked the question is it a  fact in quotation marks that trump conspired with   the russians or is that just popular group think  belief like many other facts proven by consensus   how would you deal with  that larry you want that one i'm not aware of the evidence that would uh  conclusively demonstrate it was a fact that   trump conspired with the russians uh i mean what  we need to recognize is that this is an empirical   question and we every its answer requires  investigation uh interviewing the right people um   looking at the trails of communication  things like that so i'm not i'm not   equipped with the uh the knowledge  to say whether it is a fact stephen you want to jump in on that  trump fact or not no i just agree   if it is a fact um that's something that would  have to be determined as larry said by empirical   investigation let's see the evidence and if  the evidence points in that direction um that's   that should justify our belief that he did  conspire but you know i haven't seen why i've   seen what i've read in the newspapers um and given  my beliefs about trump i wouldn't put it past him   um but um it's only to be rationally responsible  it's only a conclusion that should be drawn   when there's sufficient evidence to warrant  it probably 30 40 years from now when they   open up the files right i hope sooner than that  because it's very very important to know yeah   all right here's another question uh from dave  hildebrand i've always been very impressed with   the dialogues of krishnamurti have either  of you looked into that or does anybody   any any observations christian murthy no  okay no no whatsoever sorry no problem and   um but here's a great final final question that  we'll have from ron nasher can you say something   about the virtues and their sources aristotle  and you don't you die monia anybody want to take   the aristotle on yeah eudaimonia is the ancient  greek term it's often translated as happiness i   think it's better translated as flourishing or  well-being and for aristotle um the virtues and   virtue the word is arete and it just really means  excellence and so even scissors have a virtue   if the function is related to the function of a  thing and so the function of a scissors is to cut   a virtu a virtuous scissors cuts well or cuts  with excellence in the case of human beings   aristotle says that we we too have a proper  function and that is to exercise reason in both   thought and in action that's what we do  that's what distinguishes us from other sorts   of creatures and so the virtuous person is the  person who exercises this function with excellence   and so what we regard as the virtues courage  generosity and justice these are examples   of a human being who is excellent at reasoning  let's say in the case of courage this person is   excellent at reasoning on how to face danger  in the case of generosity another virtue   this person is excellent in knowing how to give or  how to donate just the right amount not too much   and not too little and the virtues when practiced  by human beings will lead to this flourishing   uh the virtuous person is the person  who flourishes as a rational agent yeah it's um it's a different idea and it's  interesting because the christian religion   borrowed a whole bunch of ideas from the ancient  greeks but put them in a different context   so virtue and vice are are basically thought of in  terms of you do follow god's will or do not follow   god's will um and so that's that's a a different  use of it uh but you're excelling at one thing   you're excelling at following or god's will so  if you take it out of that context yeah you want   to say something like that what christianity  did was they added additional virtues to the   to the uh to the ordinary virtues that we find  in plato they added the uh theological virtues   yes some of which may or may  not contribute to our happiness   that's true although in their view it can what it  contributes to is your salvation exactly believe   in such a thing that's the ironic part of it  is is that they say you shouldn't pursue your   happiness now because you you need to get saved  but if the saving if the saving wasn't enjoyable   uh nobody would want it anyway and therefore it's  just like delayed gratification is what they're   asking for not not giving up your happiness um so  they really aren't getting yeah but you better be   sure you better be sure of that afterlife because  um if in fact we have only this uh earthly life   and we forsake all happiness counting on it  in the next life we've made a big mistake   right you can convert pascal's wager in that way  pascal's wager and that's what i wanted to end   with so so you you talk about pascal's wager and  i i think actually that pascal's wager should be   should be turned upside down um because it seems  to me that you know first of all it's a prudential   uh uh thought a decision that's prudential and  you'd think that that if a god was in charge of   this thing that he might see through that um and  might judge it accordingly but the other thing is   um i i i'm more on the thomas more end  of this one you know he said it's kind   of ridiculous that that we prefer a vice which  brings its pain in this life and internal pain   to virtue which brings its pleasure in this  life and leads to eternal salvation so it's   just very ironic and i think it's because more  was working with an ancient greek idea of virtue   that it's excellence in life instead of with  in the completely christian idea of virtue   and he he he made some other funny  jokes about that he said if if uh   if really we weren't supposed to be happy  in life then then the beatitudes would be   make people miserable don't help the poor don't  help this make everybody as miserable as possible   so they're prepared for heaven if that's what it  was he said that's obviously wrong so so it has to   be it can't be that god wants us to be miserable  let's just you know leave it with thomas marcus he   he disagree with pascal about that and i think  if the wager is i think that the waitress you   don't have to believe that there's a god or not  a god but i think if you're going to believe in   him you should believe he's got a good person  out a reliable personality uh somebody that you   can count on yeah it's not how good pascal's god  does not have a good personality no no and and   so it seems to me that first of all our beliefs  don't change the reality whether god exists or not   but it would seem to me that it would be much more  useful to have a belief in his personality being   a good one um than to just believe he exists  uh and i so well we'll stop with that but it   just seems more likely um because that's sort of  what jesus said i think in spite of the fact that   that's the source of the other stuff because he  said imagine the best father you can multiply that   70 times seven times that's weight that's what  my father is like so that's a good personality   right but in any case our beliefs don't change  the reality we'll find out sometime or we won't   and that's that's the way philosophers do it so  thank you very much i think that was both your   book and the conversation was a good example  of your virtue and explaining ideas well thank   you for having us george thank you so much and  so ends another event at the commonwealth club   in its 119th year of enlightened discussion we  don't have as much time as thousands of years on   our side but but we're getting there so thank you  very much and we'll see you again another program you

Channel: Commonwealth Club of California

Views: 6,048

Keywords: CommonwealthClub, CommonwealthClubofCalifornia, Sanfrancisco, Nonprofitmedia, nonprofitvideo, politics, Currentevents, CaliforniaCurrentEvents, #newyoutubevideo, #youtubechannel, #youtubechannels

Id: WygMNFrCV18

Length: 69min 15sec (4155 seconds)

Published: Wed Sep 01 2021