Other episodes in the series include: Jacques Derrida on Insanity versus Reason Ayn Rand on Individual Rights Michel Foucault on Power and Sexuality Francis Bacon on the New Philosophy and Science

Popper was indeed a serious and important thinker in the 20th century, particularly in regards to his thoughtful considerations of the nature of genuine scientific inquiry.

Please do a deep dive into Popper and Phil of science. I loved this.

this is great. I hope professor Hicks covers Feyerabend next.

This is probably my favorite episode of Philosophers Explained so far, because it encapsulates several philosophers and topics I find interesting. The main topic makes me think of Benjamin Boyce's latest episode with Ed Dutton. Boyce's channel is one of my favorites, Professor Hicks has been a guest. Dutton is a somewhat controversial individual with whom I tend to at least somewhat disagree, however I would compare him to Charles Murray as someone who happens to be Conservative, and does important work in a similar subject area. I've learned a lot from Dutton's channel. I look forward to Hicks's forthcoming work, that James Lindsay mentioned on his podcast, which apparently will be a defense of Liberalism that incorporates the latest scientific findings. This defense, is of course relevant to the main topic of this video. (Testing and updating theories properly, and perhaps philosophies by extension). Personally, I think that Liberalism still entails the best type of governance, though some of its claims don't hold up if interpreted literally, and I also think empiricism generally, is the most importantly emphasized mode of thought processes, even though it's now essentially shown to be only one 'mode,' that's often 'drowned out'. On the defense of Liberalism as a practically advantageous system, this is where the work of someone like Dutton enters the picture, in ostensible contrast. In spite of admirable, optimistic claims to individual liberty, we now know to a certain extent, that shared group traits and genetic similarity are likely the most important factors for social cohesion, and intelligence metrics also denote an immovable, important determinant of the capacity for constructive societal engagement and/or thought processes. Albeit a noble sentiment that should not be discarded in my opinion, nevertheless all men (it's now clear) are not "created equal," the blank slate furthermore, has long been disproven. We're dealing now, with the foundations of liberal society, as mostly a set of adaptive categorizations for legal purposes, which is important, though it doesn't precisely reflect scientific/biological reality. Can Professor Hicks successfully update and defend Liberalism, and empiricism to some extent in the process, in a good faith, albeit somewhat "ad hoc" manner? James Lindsay, myself and others, are on the edge of our seats!

Stephen: do you think it would be possible to have a discussion with Cuck Philosophy over your points of contention? Maybe you could get the Triggernometry guys to host it?

Marx is like reverse alchemy: turning base metals into genocide