1. Debating the Flat Earthers, part 1: they don't understand what science is.

4. Debating the Flat Earthers, part 4: time for a Pop(per) quiz!

We finish our discussion of Joe’s debate with the flat earthers covering a series of questions levelled against him: what comes first, a theory or a hypothesis? Or what comes first, inductive or deductive reasoning? Do theories describe or do models describe? Perhaps most importantly, do you even know Popper dude? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joeleedoktor.substack.com [https://joeleedoktor.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

3. Debating the Flat Earthers, part 3: they sell bridges?!

The debate continues with a discussion of the sources provided at the end of part 2. We go on to briefly talk about some reasons for the importance of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience, before finishing up the episode with a discussion of vagueness and how vague concepts need not be arbitrary. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joeleedoktor.substack.com [https://joeleedoktor.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

2. Debating the Flat Earthers, part 2: these sources suck.

Continuing the discussion from Episode 1 we kick off with an exploration of the notion of exploratory research as an example of scientific practice that doesn’t follow the narrow definition of science proposed to Joe. The self-proclaimed flat-earthers then provide Joe with sources to support their arguments, but will the sources work to prove Joe wrong? We spend the rest of the episode going into some detail discussing these sources and others. Links and citations of sources discussed: https://biologydictionary.net/scientific-method/ [https://biologydictionary.net/scientific-method/] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/ [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/] Schickore, J., Hangel, N. “It might be this, it should be that…” uncertainty and doubt in day-to-day research practice. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 9, 31 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-019-0253-9 [https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-019-0253-9] Wivagg, Dan & Allchin, Dk. (2002). The Dogma of “The” Scientific Method. American Biology Teacher. 64. 645-646. 10.2307/4451400. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joeleedoktor.substack.com [https://joeleedoktor.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The World as it Becomes Podcast: Introduction

After introducing ourselves (Joe and Jacob) and discussing our academic interests and current research, we go on to outline the motivations we have for making this podcast and explore some topics we hope to cover in later episodes. We also tell the story of how our first topic, Joe’s debate with some flat earthers, came about. Thanks for listening! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joeleedoktor.substack.com [https://joeleedoktor.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

1. Debating the Flat Earthers, part 1: they don't understand what science is.

In this episode we start our discussion of Joe’s debate with some flat earthers. After initially discussing whether Einstein’s work counts as good science (it does), the conversation quickly moves into the main subject we’ll be exploring over the next few episodes - what is science? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joeleedoktor.substack.com [https://joeleedoktor.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]