The Rest is Uncertain

Drugs

A history of inconsistencies.In this episode, Laurance begins by noting that there are several areas of dispute surrounding the nature and use of drugs – both legal and illegal – some of which are factual (empirical) and others more conceptual or moral. A clue to his approach concerning drugs is noting that the most widely cultivated drugs are alcohol and cannabis, where, by and large, the former is legal and the latter not. The legal/illegal distinction does not adequately reflect the degree of harm caused by certain drugs, and many so-called prescription drugs can be extremely harmful. It turns out that this distinction has more to do with history and politics than with an objective appraisal of harm.The so-called “War on Drugs”, a term emanating from the USA in the 1970s, has always been more focused on policies relating to enforcement and punishment, than on the minimization of harm, even though there is little evidence that such policies have reduced either the supply of illicit drugs or the extent of the criminal networks which produce and market them.Laurance suggests that perhaps the most fundamental flaw in the way governments and whole societies think about drugs, is the inconsistency between laws and attitudes to alcohol, vis-à-vis other drugs of dependence. Indeed, in countries like Australia, excessive drinking, while acknowledged to be harmful to many, is deeply embedded in the national culture. Laurance compares the situation regarding alcohol with that of cigarettes and other nicotine products. Currently, the latter remain legal (with certain restrictions about advertising, etc.), but are subject to increased excise taxes designed, presumably, to deter people from purchasing them. However, as the demand for cigarettes is on the rise again, many are turning to criminal cartels which sell them at a cheaper price and, moreover, do whatever they can to drive legitimate suppliers out of business.Asking the question “What should be the primary concerns of government with respect to both legal and illegal drugs?”, Laurance looks first at the extremes of free-market libertarianism, and a paternalistic “nanny state” mentality, and then at the reasonable idea that harm minimization should be the major priority, whereby medical and health services play a larger role than the law. He returns to a familiar topic: the importance of engaging members of society, especially young people, in robust, informed dialogue over the issues of most concern regarding drugs, including the inconsistencies raised earlier. As always, the aim of such a dialogical process is to empower ordinary citizens to become powerful thinkers on matters of importance, so that they are best equipped to think and act as responsible agents in the world. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

AI

4w ago00:26:11Tap to summarize

What exactly is AI and how concerned should we be about it?In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter notes the distinction between empirical and more conceptual questions regarding AI, with questions about future employment and dangers relating to who controls it, and what would prevent it from dominating the world, including us. He suggests that at least some of our reservations about AI and their potential psychological status – e.g. consciousness, moral agency, free will – stem from the common stereotypes of AI as either non physical software or physical entities that are nothing like we humans. If and when AI takes on more human features, the perceived emotional gap between “us” and “them” will diminish. Laurance is prepared to countenance the possibility of non-human aliens which/who are persons because they regard themselves as one among others. Why couldn’t we come to see AI along similar lines?Turning to some of the concerns which AI has raised, Laurance notes the challenge of teaching and assessing for genuine expertise in various fields, given that many students now use AI as a “short cut”. He then moves to asking about a future in which AI not only makes much of the work currently done by humans redundant (but how much?), but engages in such higher-level tasks as discussing philosophy, and creating musical and artistic masterpieces. He revisits the question of who, if anyone, will control AI, and considers a “worst case” scenario, in which Homo sapiens is, eventually, replaced by a new species (Homo machinis?), just as the former replaced its ancestral species. He asks why the prospect of going extinct seems so frightening.Laurance turns, finally, to a recent article whose author claims that professional philosophers are increasingly being lured away from universities by AI-related companies keen to explore such questions as: “How can we ensure that AI remains well disposed to humanity’s concerns?”, and “How might humans live worthwhile lives when much of their current work is taken over by AI, leaving them with more time for contemplation and reflection.” He ends with a reminder that the contemplation of just such questions has been undertaken by philosophers for thousands of years.”Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

Explanations in the sciences, the humanities and ordinary human affairs.

Jun 2500:25:16Tap to summarize

Aiming for truth and the dangers of retreating to narratives.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter invites listeners to think about why they make the decisions and choices that they make, which refers to our capacity for agency, whereby our beliefs and desires cause us to interact with the world deliberately or intentionally. He then broadens the topic to focus on the types of causal explanations that are appropriate in the major disciplines and intellectual traditions. If we assume that explanations in the sciences are structured by well-tested laws and theories, we can also assume that the concept of causality has its most natural home in the context of the natural world and science. However, when we shift to consider events and explanations in which we humans/persons are directly involved, things become less clear, because while intentional and causal agency, which plays a central role in disciplines such as history, social studies, the law, politics, etc., the nature and status of such causation seems puzzling, because these disciplines are not governed by universal laws and theories.In line with the views of analytic philosopher Donald Davidson, causal explanations in these domains – indeed, even in relatively simple contexts involving our everyday agency – rely on appealing to a holistic network of mental states such as belief, desire and intention. In other words, there is no single, complete causal pathway outside the domain of the sciences, because our mental states are interwoven and bound together. This sense of holism relating to agency raises questions about the status of history, for example, in which we remain committed to finding what is true – as in all cases of inquiry – but must acknowledge a level of subjective interpretation on the part of historians and commentators, who make choices about what actions and events to focus on, as well as the language they use in describing and reporting them.Laurance casts a critical eye on what is becoming an increasingly popular tendency providing explanations in the humanities and social sciences, especially contemporary and contested fields such as politics, namely, to propose that explanations in these domains commonly take the form of narrative, in which the ideal of truth or truthfulness gives way to such elements as believability, “telling a good story”, etc. While acknowledging the benefits of narratives and stories in our lives, he relates this tendency to the growth of populism and the ascendency of political leaders who sow tribal divisions using narratives about “us” and “them”, etc. He maintains that such ideals as truthfulness remain important, and points, yet again to the potential of dialogue as an appropriate context for deliberating about matters of importance, whether they be strictly scientific or not. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

“The intersection of philosophy and public life” and the Enlightenment

Jun 1100:23:52Tap to summarize

Good thinking and dialogue are more important than ever.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter begins by reflecting on topics previously discussed, including: social and cultural polarization; the challenge of having dialogue when those involved not only disagree, but show no respect or empathy for their opponents; the positive value of uncertainty; immigration, housing, youth crime, and education; and the underlying theme of regarding ourselves as each “one among others”, which avoids the extremes of individualism and collectivism. Laurance also revisits his view of philosophy as contributing to such topics in terms of both content and process, which can be traced back to antiquity.Laurance advocates for reasonableness which has both cognitive and affective dimensions (“being appropriately moved by reasons”), and which offers a way forward when facing such challenges as balancing our reasoning “riders” and our emotive/intuitive “elephants”, and becoming trapped in the “echo chambers” of social media, which reinforce herd-like or tribal thinking, rather than producing thoughtful dialogue. Laurance reminds listeners of the normative ideal of a community of inquiry, which has a practical role to play, both in formal education and other social environments. He also ponders the tricky issue of responding, respectfully, to those who express views which are morally repugnant or logically incoherent.Laurance endorses a recent essay called “Flickering Enlightenment”, whose author questions some of the historical repercussions of Enlightenment thinking which include the ongoing disputes between political extremes, while underscoring the importance of thinking which is both critical and intellectually humble. He also cites the views of philosopher Hannah Arendt who wrote about the dangers of totalitarian domination when ordinary citizens ignore the difference between truth and fiction, and refuse to think for themselves.Finally, Laurance reflects on the connection between thinking and talking (more precisely, good thinking and dialogue), and reiterates that talking (and listening) produce thinking as much as they communicate it. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

A Dialogue about “Dialogue”

May 1400:31:32Tap to summarize

Are there different types of dialogues with different aims and structures?In this episode, Dr. Laurance Splitter finally engages in a real dialogue with another person, in this case, Professor Maughn Rollins Gregory, Director of the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children in the USA, and an outstanding scholar and teacher in both education and philosophy. Maughn has written extensively about the nature of dialogue itself and this is the subject of their conversation.In previous episodes, Laurance expressed some puzzlement over the question of whether there are different forms of dialogue with different aims and structures. He and Maughn share a common background in the theory and practice of the community of inquiry, where the inquiry – and the ensuing dialogue – are driven by a commitment to solving a problem or answering a question which is puzzling or intriguing. In this kind of process, our reasoning “riders” tend to lead the way over our more intuitive or emotive “elephants” (using a metaphor previously attributed to Jonathan Haidt), although it will still be driven by such emotions as curiosity, surprise, wonder, intellectual humility, etc.In previous episodes, Laurance has proposed a slogan for this kind of inquiry and dialogue: we aim for truth but are extremely wary of proclaiming that we have found it. Coming from the philosophical tradition of American Pragmatism, Maughn prefers to talk about aiming for what is most reasonable to believe, rather than for truth per se, but they are willing to live with this difference for the sake of the discussion.Laurance invites Maughn to address types of dialogue that are not part of, or aimed at, inquiry, particularly the dialogue required when different groups not only disagree on fundamental issues, but are being led by their rampaging “elephants” which prevent any real dialogue from even taking place, because each side is so committed to its own narrative that it does not even recognize the legitimacy of the other side. In short, they are not willing or able to treat one another as persons. Citing scholars including Emily Robertson, Douglas Walton, Cleo Cherry Holmes, Miles Holton and Stephen Festmeier, Maughn provides some examples of different sorts of dialogue with their own aims and structures (aiming at affirming solidarity or strengthening relationships, or developing a mutual sense of personhood through group dynamic exercises where inquiry itself is not involved, etc.). Those engaged in such dialogues are often learning how to negotiate together; there is no “truth” to be discovered or constructed, rather the aim is working out what we can all live with.Maughn and Laurance agree that regardless of which type of dialogue is involved, neither those directly engaged or those looking on from outside should try to pre-empt the outcomes of the dialogue. Like inquiry, dialogue has a life of its own and we should follow it where it leads. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

Identity (Cont’d)

Apr 3000:29:51Tap to summarize

Tying up some loose ends….In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter provides further clarification of the concept of quantitative, or strict, identity. Objects and people can and do change – we call this “qualitative change” – but such change makes sense only on the assumption that the objects in question remain “the same objects”, i.e. literally identical. We see this idea in such intuitive examples as “That individual was slim and healthy 20 years ago, but is now overweight and unwell”. This point applies both to people (or human beings) and objects. In simple logical terms, quantitative identity is involved whenever we pick out or refer to something or someone, while qualitative identity (or similarity) is about properties or characteristics that the objects picked out have in common. Logically and grammatically, words or phrases that perform the latter function are called “predicates”.However, even the simple act of picking something out has a conceptual component, because we assume that the object picked out is of a certain kind. So, While specifying and defining such kinds is not always a trivial matter, we need to do this, otherwise we would have no basis on which to assert that the object in question continues to exist (albeit through qualitative change) or ceases to exist. The oak tree survives being lopped, or losing its leaves, but not being chopped down and turned into firewood. The same holds when the object is a person or human being, although there is a long-standing dispute about which of these classifications, if either, matches the kind of individual that we each are. This dispute bears on another fundamental question about our own identities: are our existence and identity a purely physical matter, or do they have a psychological component (such as consciousness, in John Locke’s terms)?Noting that words standing for kinds are, themselves, predicates, Laurance explains that like all predicates, we normally take for granted that more than one object or person will belong to a given kind, which he summarizes by claiming that when we refer to something – i.e. one particular individual – we are assuming that that individual is one among others, i.e. one among others of the same kind. When the kind in question includes such individuals as you and me, we can add that regarding ourselves and one another as persons involves being aware of ourselves as one among others. Arguably, no other object has this level of awareness. While this sophisticated attribute is one that distinguishes us from non persons (language might be another), it also confirms our status as moral beings who can be held responsible and accountable for their actions. This point is in line with the long-standing historical claim that morality and personhood go together (although we are left with questions about the moral status of a human fetus or someone with severe dementia, on the one hand, and higher mammals, aliens and, needless to say, AI, on the other).Laurance then points out that regarding ourselves as one among others – i.e. any others – offers a relational perspective on who we are, that avoids the extremes of individualism and collectivism, as previously described. Freed from the hopeless task of trying to find those specific qualities that define persons uniquely by grouping them with others, each of us is who we are for as long as we exist. And we can, at least to an extent, view the qualitative changes that we undergo – whether by choice or otherwise – with a sense of equanimity, because none of them defines us.Laurance then offers a suggestion about how we might interpret the concept of social identity, once we accept that our own individual identities are not given in social – i.e. qualitative – terms. He also expresses some residual doubt that the deeper questions about our own status as persons have been completely answered. Does my understanding of my own subjective awareness allow me to perceive or experience myself actually engaged in the process of picking something out? Might I still demand to “see” this self which is consciously making decisions and choices based on such psychological factors as my beliefs, my desires, and my intentions?Finally, Laurance looks at the challenges confronting those whose “tribal” convictions prevent them from acknowledging that those with whom they disagree on fundamental issues are, indeed, persons and deserve to be treated as such. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

Identity

Apr 1600:29:08Tap to summarize

A concept both familiar and puzzling.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter begins with some examples which reveal that the ideaof identity has been, and is still, used to mean different things. Heraclitus asserted that no man can step into the same river twice, because it is not the same river and he is not the same man; a parent insists that their child can’t wear the same shirt again because it is dirty; and a party-goer laments that someone else is wearing exactly the same jacket that she just purchased forthe occasion.Laurance provides a brief historical account of the concept of identity, particularly since Enlightenment times, pointing out that when applied to persons and not just objects, identityover time – where we assert that A and B are the same – can have either a quantitative or aqualitative sense: the former when we mean that A and B are literally one and the same individual, and the latter when we mean either that A and B share certain characteristics or qualities – including identifying with the same group or collective (nation, religion, culture…), or that A and B can never be the same because at least some of A’s qualities have changed by thetime “it” becomes B. Qualitative interpretations of sameness are common in the social sciences,which (confusingly) combine individual and social identity. And the rejection of any kind of stableidentity has been expressed within Postmodernism and Buddhism.In closing the episode, Laurance indicates that in the next episode he will defend a quantitativesense of identity when it comes to individual objects and persons, one which steers a pathbetween the extremes of crude individualism and tribal collectivism. He leaves listeners hangingwith a familiar example of the school photo (“Can you find me in the photo of my 3 rd grade class?”), and the hint of a logical distinction between words that pick out, or refer to, things(including people), and words that characterize, group, or describe those things picked out. Quantitative or strict identity focuses on the former, while qualitative identity (or similarity) getsinto trouble by focusing on the latter. He finishes with a promise to reveal how getting clearabout identity in general, and personal identity in particular, will pave the way toward resolvingsome of the social, political and moral problems confronting us today.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

Immigration

Apr 200:34:49Tap to summarize

Why is the topic of immigration so socially divisive? In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter begins with several disclaimers, which include avoiding the explicitly political dimensions of immigration (which, inevitably, focus on extreme positions), and also making reference to specific religious or cultural groups. Listeners are invited to make these connections for themselves. Laurance makes a distinction between factual issues regarding immigration – where immigrants to Australia have come from, the reasons people have sought to migrate, and the criteria or standards which are applied in determining who should, or should not, be permitted to immigrate – and issues which are best described as ethical and emotional (although this distinction is far from clear). Among those seeking to migrate are those classified as refugees or asylum seekers, which suggests another distinction: that between practical or utilitarian considerations (the impact on housing or employment, etc.) – i.e. how immigration affects our own country and its existing citizens – and considerations based on compassion and care for those seeking refuge and safety because of the dangerous, even life-threatening conditions in their home countries.After asking the question “What is the ideal population size for our country?” – and realizing how difficult it is to answer – Laurance moves to consider the contentious issue of Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers who have sought refuge in precarious circumstances (often on overcrowded boats managed by people smugglers). He admits to feeling a sense of shame on this topic, particularly because the major political parties have been unanimous in ruling that such individuals will never be allowed to settle permanently in Australia.Laurance then considers the question that is central in the minds of many Australians (likewise in many other countries): “Who are those seeking to migrate and, specifically, are they sufficiently ‘like us’?” Key examples are the members of certain religious and cultural groups, and people arriving from countries which have a history of violence. Laurance raises questions about multiculturalism and diversity, and asks what the oft-used term “Australian values” actually stands for, other than those values which are associated with universal human decency and ethics. He then returns to a recurring theme and asks whether our primary concern should be the values and practices of different cultural groups, or those of specific individuals. The episode concludes with a question: “Is there a moral imperative to help relieve the lives of distant strangers whose lives are impoverished and endangered, when doing so is likely to produce greater strain on those at home who may already be struggling by their own standards.?” Dare we hope that such questions could be discussed with sensitivity and respect, without being sucked into familiar political stereotypes? Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

The Value of Diversity

Mar 1900:32:27Tap to summarize

Balancing commonality and diversity in determining the merits of the communities to which we belong. In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter traces the tensions between individualism and various forms of collectivism, from the end of the Cold War (which heralded “The End of History”, except that it didn’t!), to the present day. The ideal of democratic liberalism became distorted as the result of globalization and growing disparities between the “haves” and “have nots”, resulting in a present-day scenario in which a very few possess most of the world’s wealth. Growing dissatisfaction in many Western countries has led to a destructive level of “tribalism”, with those on both sides of the political spectrum aligning themselves with those who are “like themselves” and distancing themselves from those who are, in various respects, “different”. This situation has been exacerbated by opportunistic and unscrupulous political leaders who encourage a strong sense of nationalism and cast a distorted glance to a past when we all lived among those who were just like us. Laurance then focuses on Australia and its claims to be a “multicultural” society, suggesting that “multi-ghettoised” might be a better descriptor. After hinting at the problematic nature of the concept of culture, he looks more closely at a disturbing trend: the growth, in economic and numerical terms, of private schooling in relation to public schooling. He notes that private schools do not provide the kinds of diversity that exist – or could exist – in public schools and, as a result, young people are not encouraged to expand their thinking and mindsets beyond that which is already familiar to them. He is particularly critical of the implications of students attending gender-specific schools. He challenges governments to become more involved in or, at least, more aware of, the teaching styles and curricula of all schools. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

Communities of Inquiry in Practice

Mar 500:29:02Tap to summarize

How do communities of inquiry work across subjects like philosophy, mathematics, and science?In this episode, Dr. Laurance Splitter shares practical examples of collaborative inquiry with students of different ages, sparked by stories, games, and classroom activities. Discussions range from loyalty and friendship to reasoning, mathematical abstraction, scientific concepts, and ethical questions about animals and human responsibility.These examples show how effective teachers foster genuine inquiry without fixed outcomes.The episode concludes with Laurance reflecting on student podcast discussions about social media, trust, and justice and the resistance he encountered when schools deemed related topics “too sensitive.” Echoing psychologist Jonathan Haidt, he highlights the tension between protecting young people and limiting their opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue about the issues shaping their lives.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Transcribe →

All episodes

Drugs

AI

Explanations in the sciences, the humanities and ordinary human affairs.

“The intersection of philosophy and public life” and the Enlightenment

A Dialogue about “Dialogue”

Identity (Cont’d)

Identity

Immigration

The Value of Diversity

Communities of Inquiry in Practice