Wednesday Wisdom

Wednesday Wisdom

Last week we spoke about Karl Popper’s principal theory that the philosophy of science rests on the rejection of the inductive method in the empirical sciences. Inductive reasoning or logic is the process where observations lead to general theories. Deductive reasoning or logic is where theory or assumption is empirically tested and retested toward a probable outcome. Popper argued that through deductive reasoning and that all information is not possible to be known therefore that argument must also be proved falsifiable.

(link to previous post Wednesday Wisdom)

Popper went on to promote falsification as the essence of the scientific process, with the search for falsifiable predictions being the distinguishing feature between science and pseudoscience. Popper was important for the scientific community with his believe in that the logic of science was steeped in philosophical tradition.

In 399 BCE, Greek philosopher Socrates stood trial before the people of Athens, the world’s first democracy at its turbulent height. His accusers charged him with impropriety by corrupting the youth by encouraging the youth of Athens to question power. In a city proud of its orators, generals, and poets, Socrates claimed no expertise in politics, poetry, or craft. He professed only a kind of negative wisdom in that his lack of all knowledge was his own ignorance. “I am wiser than this man,” he told the jury, “for neither of us probably knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know”

The “Socratic paradox” is that wisdom begins with the recognition of ignorance. His insight struck at the heart of Athenian pride. Knowledge, for Socrates was not a treasure to be hoarded but a process of dialogue, a continuous testing of claims, an exposure of hidden assumptions and refusing to grant immunity to any authority.

Socrates style of engaging in debate and asking questions became known as the “Socratic method” and his perpetual questioning became the seed of Western philosophy. More than a style of inquiry, it was a civic ethic of questioning authority. It argues that the health of public life depends not on final answers but on the humility to admit fallibility. To accept that we “do not know” as Plato wrote quoting Socrates is not despair but liberation because it opens the space for debate, correction, and an open discussion.

2025- why do we care?

Karl Popper’s ethos of reputation became the essence of the scientific process, with the search for falsifiable predictions being the distinguishing feature between science and pseudoscience. It continues the tradition of Socrates in the understanding that even an “oracle” doesn’t possess all-encompassing knowledge.

We now confront a new authority in artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs). These new technologies generate sentences with the fluency of practiced rhetoricians, and they produce seamless and confident narratives that seem to make them infallible. In theory, they will possess all of the knowledge of mankind and act as a polymath and combining the knowledge of all the smartest people who ever lived.

Throughout time our strength has been the ability to form, revise, and test beliefs through critical reflection. Human knowing, in the classical sense, involves what philosophers call “mineness”, the recognition that a belief or experience is one’s own, and therefore open to evaluation and correction. An A.I. system, by contrast, has no ownership of what it asserts, it only presents an illusion of certainty. It cannot distinguish between what it outputs, what are the most trusted inputs and the grounds on which those outputs are presented as truth.

Contrast this with the traditions of Socrates and Popper. Socrates made ignorance the beginning of inquiry while Popper made refutation the criterion of science. Both insisted that humility is not weakness but strength, the only posture that preserves the possibility of truth.

There is already a clamor on the ethical component of social media and what it does to our society and youth. What happens to a society when A.I. has no ability to refute in the tradition of Popper or question in the Socratic method of questioning a “new authority”?

Socrates was charged with impiety and with corrupting the youth by encouraging them to question the power of Athenian power. His destiny was hemlock for telling truth to power.

Conceding that large language models have all the information available yet lack the humility or humanity to admit bias or ownership, begs the question why we would concede certainty and exclude doubt. When prompting your LLMs, should we not train them to think like great philosophers. For example, what would Socrates think of… is your prompt or how would Karl Popper explore this…given we don’t have all the information.

Perhaps, in my humble opinion, we can inject some doubt, reason and humility into modern technology when we remember today’s knowledge has been built on the shoulders on many a great thinker.

And now you know...

Thank you, Dad, for the gift of curiosity

Philosophy is the art of thinking, the building block of progress that shapes critical thinking across economics, ethics, religion, and science.

METAPHYSICS: Literally, the term metaphysics means ‘beyond the physical.’ Typically, this is the branch that most people think of when they picture philosophy. In metaphysics, the goal is to answer the what and how questions in life. Who are we, and what are time and space?

LOGIC: The study of reasoning. Much like metaphysics, understanding logic helps to understand and appreciate how we perceive the rest of our world. More than that, it provides a foundation for which to build and interpret arguments and analyses.

ETHICS: The study of morality, right and wrong, good and evil. Ethics tackles difficult conversations by adding weight to actions and decisions. Politics takes ethics to a larger scale, applying it to a group (or groups) of people. Political philosophers study political governments, laws, justice, authority, rights, liberty, ethics, and much more.

AESTHETICS: What is beautiful? Philosophers try to understand, qualify, and quantify what makes art what it is. Aesthetics also takes a deeper look at the artwork itself, trying to understand the meaning behind it, both art as a whole and art on an individual level. A question an aesthetics philosopher would seek to address is whether or not beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

EPISTEMOLOGY: This is the study and understanding of knowledge. The main question is how do we know? We can question the limitations of logic, how comprehension works, and the ability (or perception) to be certain.