42:I[185,["/_next/static/chunks/3xnt26d00_zk-.js","/_next/static/chunks/1s-yni1uf2lwd.js","/_next/static/chunks/42spz6paskvb6.js","/_next/static/chunks/06x30xgfe6iur.js","/_next/static/chunks/3b4qrzgkt_l12.js","/_next/static/chunks/15lgs8s22dk5l.js"],"SendEmailButton"] 44:I[63625,["/_next/static/chunks/3xnt26d00_zk-.js","/_next/static/chunks/1s-yni1uf2lwd.js","/_next/static/chunks/42spz6paskvb6.js","/_next/static/chunks/06x30xgfe6iur.js","/_next/static/chunks/3b4qrzgkt_l12.js","/_next/static/chunks/15lgs8s22dk5l.js"],"AddToLibraryButton"] 45:I[29721,["/_next/static/chunks/3xnt26d00_zk-.js","/_next/static/chunks/1s-yni1uf2lwd.js","/_next/static/chunks/42spz6paskvb6.js","/_next/static/chunks/06x30xgfe6iur.js","/_next/static/chunks/3b4qrzgkt_l12.js","/_next/static/chunks/15lgs8s22dk5l.js"],"ShareButton"] 46:I[58016,["/_next/static/chunks/3xnt26d00_zk-.js","/_next/static/chunks/1s-yni1uf2lwd.js","/_next/static/chunks/42spz6paskvb6.js","/_next/static/chunks/06x30xgfe6iur.js","/_next/static/chunks/3b4qrzgkt_l12.js","/_next/static/chunks/15lgs8s22dk5l.js"],"ProcessEpisodeButton"] 47:I[45269,["/_next/static/chunks/3xnt26d00_zk-.js","/_next/static/chunks/1s-yni1uf2lwd.js","/_next/static/chunks/42spz6paskvb6.js","/_next/static/chunks/06x30xgfe6iur.js","/_next/static/chunks/3b4qrzgkt_l12.js","/_next/static/chunks/15lgs8s22dk5l.js"],"SignupCTA"] 3a:["$","time",null,{"dateTime":"2026-01-06T12:00:00.000Z","children":"January 6, 2026"}] 3b:["$","span",null,{"aria-hidden":true,"children":"·"}] 3c:["$","span",null,{"children":"00:58:50"}] 43:T55f,

In this episode, Bruce explores his extended conversation with philosopher and inductivist Kieren, focusing on Kieren’s claim that Popper’s Critical Rationalism ultimately depends on induction.

Bruce then makes a striking counter-claim: that Kieren’s entire argument amounts to stripping all substantive content from his “theory” of induction and turning it into an unfalsifiable concept—essentially a word game, a kind of argument-by-tautology designed to immunize the theory from criticism. Or put another way, Kieren is turning his theory into a concept because concepts are unfalsifiable.

This leads Bruce into a deeper examination of what induction actually is—and what it isn’t. Why is “induction” such a confusing, multidimensional idea? What is the real point of contention between critical rationalists and inductivists? Did Popper truly lack a notion of “support,” as Kieren argues? And what did Popper actually say about justification—did he really reject every form of it?

And to make things even more provocative: do CritRats rely on similar linguistic maneuvers to shield their own favored theories from criticism?

⁠⁠Support us on Patreon