Our minds are amazing prediction machines—and sometimes they can even make their predictions come true! There’s nothing mystical or magical here—like if you believe in something hard enough, you’re going to “manifest” it. We’re just talking about the kind of thinking we do all the time
Suppose you’re on your daily commute to Mars. You’re about to get beamed up, but something goes wrong—the transporter makes a copy of you on Mars, like it’s supposed to, but it forgets to vaporize you back home. So now there are two of you. And if there are two of you, the question is which one is the real you—the you on Earth, or the you on Mars?
When philosophers talk about perception, they tend to focus on what we see and hear, and rarely on what we smell. But olfaction is a strange sense that deserves greater philosophical scrutiny. For example, when you smell something, what exactly are you smelling?
More and more cinemas are struggling to keep their doors open, and more and more people consume films in their own homes, often alone. “Women Talking” is a challenging film about what it means to be a community, but it’s also a film that reminds us that films were meant to be watched in community.
Some consider cancel culture a real problem: people losing their jobs, being harassd online, their home addresses being shared. Others see people who do or say terrible things getting some pushback but mostly whining on their Netflix comedy special about how they’ve been victimized.
This week we’re asking why we should trust science—which may sound like a weird question. After all, why would we doubt the method that helps us build bridges and skyscrapers, formulate life saving medicines, and understand the cosmos?
Following up on last year’s not-so-new experiment, here’s a little behind-the-scenes look into the brief audio montages (produced by yours truly) that we included in this year’s episode in lieu of the usual Roving Philosophical Report.
Why would anyone want to think like a conspiracy theorist? They ignore contrary evidence, they think they’re experts on things that they know nothing about, and they project malicious intent onto events that have innocent explanations.
The world is on fire; authoritarianism threatens multiple countries; racism and xenophobia are rampant; women’s and LGBTQ rights are under threat—why would anyone spend time reading a novel by a man who’s been dead a hundred years?
We sure could use leaders who accept basic science and legislate effectively. But do we need our leaders to be good people on top of all that? Isn’t asking them to be virtuous people kind of a high bar?
Classical Liberal thinkers held that we’re all born free, equal, and capable of rationality. So how does that square with a British Empire that denied people around the globe their autonomy for centuries?
With floods and fires getting more frequent and intense, and the summer just ended shattering heat records around the globe, we clearly need to do something—collectively—about climate change.
How can anyone own a culture? The British Museum is full of artifacts that the UK stole from all around the world, but mostly when we talk about cultural appropriation, we’re talking about borrowing an idea.
Effective Altruism is the idea that you should do the most good you can, and you should do research to figure out the best way to give. But if we were all effective altruists, wouldn’t we end up ignoring people in need in our own communities?
Political Inequality is when some people don’t get an equal voice in society, because they’re not represented in government, or they’re not allowed to vote, or their ballots are just ignored. Of course, that’s not all that matters—in fact it may not even be the main issue.
Is optimism rational? If you’ve been paying attention to the news lately, then pessimism about issues like climate change, women’s rights, the future of democracy seems more appropriate. But don’t we need optimism to even tackle those problems?