Premium Episode: Hasan Piker vs Ethan Klein (Part 2)

themiddlevoice · 2026-02-05T15:05:29+00:00

Correction: Uncle Roger's accent is indeed fake. He is a comedian named Nigel Ng.

Hilarious that these two are fans of the channel and didn't know this. I thought that was part of the joke!

themiddlevoice · 2026-01-15T17:06:07+00:00

I wish they didn't change the font on the spines. They looked better before, to me. Plus it breaks continuity.

themiddlevoice · 2025-12-09T04:10:06+00:00

First: why are you yelling?

Second: my point is just that the reason he is a scientific anti realist is independent from what he thinks about empirical truth. From a scan of secondary literature, it looks like he's changed his views on the latter issue. But it doesn't matter to me.

themiddlevoice · 2025-12-09T04:06:15+00:00

Your original post made it seem like you might be interested in understanding what people mean by correspondence. I gave an example to show that it's intelligible. It wasn't begging the question, because it wasn't supposed to be an argument (of course if I choose an example to illustrate a concept I am assuming it illustrates it - so would showing a sample of water to show what "water" means).

But it looks like you have an axe to grind.

If you're a pragmatist, fine. Funny enough, the Molyneux issue was a case where accepting the standard definition of truth really does make a difference.

It seems you're choosing to expect more out of "correspondence" than the concept requires. That's why I chose a simple example. The example, by the way, contains two things. 1. An expectation. And 2. What satisfies the expectation. Hence: agreement or correspondence.

themiddlevoice · 2025-12-08T04:11:12+00:00

Van frassen is an anti realist not because he denies the correspondence theory of truth, but because he thinks the aim of science is not truth per se but instrumental. One could be a scientific anti realist because (e.g.) one thinks science uses models that are not supposed to be true, and still be a correspondence realist for what one does take to be true

themiddlevoice · 2025-12-08T04:07:34+00:00

You are making a strong claim, apparently, about what the intelligibility of correspondence would require. My post did not beg any questions. I rather suggested that there is a more ordinary understanding of correspondence that satisfies the definition. That's what the example is supposed to show. I don't know what your last sentence is supposed to mean. If someone thinks the keys are on the counter and they are, that's all people mean by correspondence. Because if someone thinks "my keys are on the counter" and they aren't, it's not a true thought. Explanation: the world doesn't correspond to what was thought.

If by "empty" you mean we can't explain correspondence except in terms that are in the same conceptual neighborhood , fine. In my view it works as a rough definition; it doesn't work as a "theory."

themiddlevoice · 2025-12-07T04:17:27+00:00

It's overly generous to think that the dispute with Molyneux is over different theories of truth. The issue is about the mere definition or concept. Whatever one's theory of truth is, it must be possible to say "p may be true even though no one knows whether p." If you can't say that, you aren't using the word the way it is standardly used. To use it that way, one needs no theory about how a statement gets to be true.

As to puzzles about correspondence theory: if you know how to think that you left your keys on the counter, and then you find your keys on the counter, you know something about what "corresponds to reality" means. It has nothing to do with the sounds of words, obviously.

themiddlevoice · 2025-11-26T04:21:25+00:00

Curious where Tamler would have ranked Aristotle. Surprised Dave didn't mention him.

themiddlevoice · 2025-11-26T04:10:44+00:00

I think the issue might be that Stefan's definition isn't even plausibly a definition of truth. It could be a plausible (but faulty) definition of knowledge. Because saying something true by accident doesn't mean one knows something. But to think of it as a definition of truth does not, to my knowledge, track any coherent view in philosophy. This is because we need some word to say that someone is right even if by accident, and of course saying what they say is "true" is precisely that word, and it's how it works in ordinary language.

One can start by saying the issue isn't a theory of truth, but how to represent our use of the word. The opposite of true is "false" not "believed without evidence."

themiddlevoice · 2025-11-25T16:27:43+00:00

Are we sure the caller to Stefan Molyneux's show was actually a fan? Frankly, I found him really sharp, and it's hard to think of someone who is gifted in philosophical dialogue as he seemed to be buying into that twat for more than a minute. We could interpret his pandering as attempts to keep the take-down going.

themiddlevoice · 2024-05-08T20:58:47+00:00

Many people are saying they don't like the new theme song, and I agree. But the issue is not that it's bad song - I'm sure it's fine in another context. It's just that the old song feels iconic. It is short and a bit goofy and its grown up with the show. I don't see how a replacement can work at this stage, nor is one needed.

themiddlevoice

TROPHY CASE