In the Beginning, there was ... Philosophy.

This his episode consists of two parts. In Part I, I discuss the role of trust in personal relationships - called interpersonal trust. In the second part I consider the role of trust in people's relationships with institutions - called institutional trust. In both cases an expectation of benefits from the trustee to the truster is involved. We make inductive inferences from past experience of benefits to the expectation of future benefits. When the trustee turns out to be reliable we tend to trust them. Such expectations can be disappointed. When this happens it leads to distrust on the part of the truster. The trustee comes to be seen as untrustworthy.In the second part I emphasise the importance of trust in social and political institutions (from banks to universities). A free society cannot function properly, if people have no trust in the institutions (say, the government, the health system, the police etc.). In a dictatorship, trust is not needed because it is replaced by intimidation, fear violence. A democracy needs trust, because people always have the choice of alternatives (different political parties, newspapers, organizations). There is a vast amount of literature on trust. The following are good starting points:Katherine Hawley, Trust. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press (2012)The Ethics and Epistemology of Trust, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.On the notion of trust, you may also consult my paper:Weinert, F.: ‘The Role of Trust in Political Systems. A Philosophical Perspective.’ Open Political Science 1 (2018): 7-15

In this Episode I look at the philosophy of Stoicism, through the eyes of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD). As with so many things, Stoicism goes back to the Greeks; its impact reached into the Roman period. It is much more than composure in the face of adversity. It is a practical philosophy, a way of life: how to lead a wise life. Wisdom embraces justice, rationality and control over one's emotions. It also has political implications: the Stoic cares for the community of which s/he is a member. And there are cosmopolitan implications: the Stoic is part and parcel of the evolution of the cosmos, even though life is transient and short. Literature:-Marcus Aurelius; Meditations (many editions)-The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) is famous, amongst other things, for his negative outlook on life and human nature. His pessimism was partly due to his experience of human misery and his revolt against slavery; it was also partly due to his philosophy of the Will. He saw the Will as the blind driving force of human actions and behaviour. As humans have no control over the Will, their actions are not free. Schopenhauer, who was a brilliant prose writer, argues that our characters are unchangeable. There is no freedom of the Will. He was a virulent opponent of the obscurantism of German Idealism (Hegel, Fichte, Schelling) and a champion of clear language. Although he lived in the shadow of Hegel (and other German idealists) his ideas have influenced the likes of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Freud and Einstein. Karl Popper counted him amongst the great philosophers. Literature:Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

In this Episode, I introduce the life and work of a forgotten hero of science: Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859). In his own time he was such a famous explorer and discoverer that many of his contemporaries were influenced by his thinking, most notably Charles Darwin. And even though he is no longer as well known as Darwin today , many places, species, mountains and rivers are still named after him. He took a global approach to Nature, treating Nature as an interrelated whole, in which everything is in flux. He became the first ecologist who truly understood the importance of the environment and its influence on life. He approached Nature as a living organism. Politically, he was inspired by the ideals of the French revolution, which made him an opponent of colonialism and slavery. Literature:Andrea Wulf: The Invention of Nature (2015; a magnificent biography, on which this episode is based) Friedel Weinert: The Scientist as Philosopher (2004: Ch. I.2 in which I explain the emergence of this notion of nature)Websites:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alexander-humboldt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_von_Humboldt

This episode looks at three pre-Darwinian accounts of the development of organic nature: the Great Chain of Being, Design arguments (Paley) and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's 'transformatism'. All of these accounts assume, in one way or another, that the explanation of organic life requires the postulation of purpose and design in nature. This assumption is in striking contrast with mechanical explanations in astronomy and physics. The idea of 'evolution' was well accepted before Darwin. But Darwin's achievement consists in the articulation of a testable mechanism - natural selection - which explained evolution, without requiring design and purpose. The episode ends with a succinct description of Darwin's 'revolution'. Literature:J. C. Greene, ‘The Kuhnian Paradigm and theDarwinian Revolution in Natural History’, in: G. Gutting (ed.): Paradigms and Revolutions (1980: 297-320)F. Weinert, Copernicus, Darwin & Freud (Wiley 2009)

In this episode I introduce a brief history of scepticism, that is the doubt whether we can have any certain knowledge of the external world. I start with the Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus who lived in the second century AD. His arguments were taken up and developed by the French Renaissance writer Michel Montaigne (1533-1592). Two French philosophers - Marin Mersenne (1588-1648) and his friend Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) - rejected this rather defeatist version of scepticism and proposed a more moderate form: it accepts that we can have knowledge of appearances but know nothing about their underlying causes. Modern scepticism, as represented by the philosopher Karl Popper and the physicist Sean Carroll, defends the idea of conjectural knowledge. Science knows about appearances and the underlying causes but this knowledge is conjectural because it is always at the risk of refutation and revision. Literature:Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of PyrrhonismR. H. Popkin, The History of Scepticism (3rd edition 2003)N. A. Pinillos, Why We Doubt (OUP 2023)F. Weinert, Karl Popper - Professional Philosopher and Public Intellectual (Springer 2022).

This episode introduces the life and influential ideas of William of Ockham (1287-1347). He was a controversial figure in his own time and is famous for his principle, known as Ockham's razor. It is a principle of economy, adopted by many philosophers and scientists, including Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking. Its modern version recommends to use as few principles as possible to explain a maximum of facts. Ockham himself advised not to make unnecessary assumptions and not to postulate that abstract terms - such as beauty, cathood or humanity, - lead an extra-mental existence of their own in some sort of Platonic realm. Literature:This episode is based on my article: 'A razor sharp mind', in The Times Higher Education Supplement (14.03. 1986).There are informative articles on Ockham in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

There is the rather common view that the Middle Ages were an age of darkness, ignorance and religious intolerance. But how true is this image? This episode introduces the Middle Ages (1000 AD-1543) as a period of intellectual vitality. It gave rise natural philosophy, which is the precursor of modern science. It accomplished two things. The first task was to make the Bible and Christian religion compatible with the authoritative teachings of Aristotle. This compromise was achieved by two remarkable scholars: Albert the Great (Albertus Magnus, 1200-1280) and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274). The second task was to recognise Aristotle's errors and develop alternative explanations of the observable events in the natural world. Such alternative explanations were developed by John Buridan (1300-1361) and Nicola Oresme (1325-1382), amongst other scholastic philosophers. Both were followers of William of Ockham's philosophy of nominalism (1287-1347) and the maxim called Ockham's razor.Literature:A. C. Crombie: Augustine to Galileo (1959)J. Hannam: God's Philosophers (2009)

This episode discusses scientific mistakes and blunders which have occurred in the history of science. Mistakes may be based on false information or mistaken assumptions, in which case they are honest mistakes. But if they are based on deliberate misinformation and incompetence, they are downright blunders. We can and should learn from mistakes but blunders are bad news because they have disastrous consequences. If mistakes are based on the wrong assumptions, they are usually be corrected, disproved or dispensed with. Blunders happen because factors external to science (political or religious interference) distort scientific investigations. Literature:Robert Youngson, Scientific Blunders. A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists Can Sometimes Be (1998).

Popper's Critical Rationalism consists of two parts: 1) a critical attitude towards science; 2) a critical attitude towards politics. The critical attitude towards science meant that he regarded all scientific knowledge as fallible. No certainty exists in science. All scientific theories are subject to severe tests and are constantly facing the evidence. This is his famous method of falsifiability: all scientific knowledge is fallible. When he applies to it politics, it turns into the fallibility of political leaders and their ideas. It becomes his plea for an open society, in which the rule of law guarantees that political ideas and programmes are subject to rigorous scrutiny to prevent political leaders from doing too much harm. In an open society, the individual enjoys inalienable rights.Literature:Popper, K.: Conjectures and Refutations (1963)Popper, K.: Objective Knowledge (1972)Popper, K.: The Open Society and Its Enemies (2 volumes, 1966)Popper, K.: Unended Quest - An Intellectual Biography (1976)Weinert, F.: Karl Popper - Professional Philosopher and Public Intellectual (2022)

This episode focuses on the Enlightenment in France and Germany. Whilst it shares the basic Enlightenment ideals, there are national characteristics. In France the Enlightenment was shaped by the experience of the Ancien Regime. It is strong opposition to the power of the Catholic Church and Absolute Monarchy. An outstanding achievement of the French Enlightenment is the publication of the Encyclopedia,which was forbidden in 1759. In Germany, the emphasis is on the meaning of the Enlightenment. What does it mean to be enlightened? Immanuel Kant famously defines the Enlightenment as as the emergence from self-inflicted immaturity. The German Enlightenment philosophers also reflect on the limitation of enlightened thinking. The Prussian King Frederick the Great saw himself as an enlightened ruler; so did Catherine the Great in Russia. Both hosted enlightened philosophers and scientists.

The Enlightenment (1688-1804) emerged in three European countries, in rough chronological order in Britain, then France and it ended in Germany. This episode (Part I) starts with a general characterisation of the Enlightenment and then focuses on the Enlightenment in Britain. The Enlightenment owes its momentum to the Scientific Revolution, which brought about a fundamental change in world views. The Enlightenment is an application of scientific principles to the intellectual and social world. In Britain it takes the form of Empiricism and Liberalism (John Locke, David Hume).Literature:(The following texts are a small selection).Berlin, I.: Three Critics of the Enlightenment (ed. by Henry Hardy) Pimlico 2000Cassirer, E.: The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (1932/2009)Gay, P.: The Enlightenment (Volume 1: 1995; Volume 2: 1970Hazard, P.: The Crisis of the European Mind (1680-1715)Im Hof, U.: Enlightenment. Making of Europe (1994/1997)Porter, R.: The Enlightenment (Studies in European History) (1990/2001) Porter, R.: Enlightenment: Britain and the Creation of the Modern World. Penguin Press 2000 Randall, J. H. The Career of Philosophy. Vol. 2 (1962/2022)Torre, J. R.: The Enlightenment in America, 1720-1825 (Pickering & Chatto 2011)The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy contain further material.

In this Episode I address the question of whether populism poses a danger to a democratic, open society. I define populism as charismatic leadership with a particular vision. I make a distinction between a democratic regime - with emphasis on the rule of law, the independence of institutions and freedom - and an open society - with the emphasis on accountability, contestability and critical scrutiny of political affairs, established traditions and figures in authority. I argue that it is important to uphold a ope and democratic society because of the fallibility of all political visions.Literature:The classic sources on the open society are:Bergson, H.:  The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1935; Osmania University Library, Internet Source) Popper, K. R.: The Open Society and Its Enemies. Volume I: Plato. (London: Routledge 1945, 1966) Volume II: Hegel & Marx. (London: Routledge 1945, 1962)Good books on populism are:Mounk, Y.: The People vs. Democracy: Why our Freedom is in Danger & How to Save it. (Harvard University Press 2018)Müller, J.W.: What is Populism? (Penguin Books 2017)Weyland, K.: Democracy’s Resilience to Populism’s Threat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2024I have published a review article on this whole question:Weinert, F.: ‘The Open Society Revisited’, in: Social Sciences  2025, 14 (3), 118; ⁠https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030118On the notion of trust, you may consult my paper:Weinert, F.: ‘The Role of Trust in Political Systems. A Philosophical Perspective.’ Open Political Science 1 (2018): 7-15

In the last episode on Human Rights, I left open the question of whether Civil Disobedience should count as a fundamental human right. A good example of this debate occurs in the film The Great Debaters (2007). After having defined civil disobedience (following the philosophers John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas), I argue that it should count as a fundamental human right - under specified conditions: it should be a non-violent, public and political act, undertaken by a group in society whose fundamental human rights are under threat. I discuss the role of civil disobedience in both democratic systems, in which it can play an active part, and in totalitarian regimes, in which it mainly plays a passive part. Civil disobedience can be seen as the right for fight for one's rights. Literature: - M. Walzer, Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War and Citizenship (1970) - J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971: Ch. VI) - J. Habermas, 'Civil Disobedience', in: Berkeley Journal of Sociology 30 (1985): 95-116 (translated form the German original in: Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit, 1985: 79-99)

Following on from the last two episodes, which broadly dealt with issues of human freedom and justice, the question of the need for human rights arises naturally. I distinguish civil from human rights. Civil rights exist on the national level and they may differ from country to country. I propose three criteria to differentiate them from human or universal rights, which, as the term suggests, are transnational and transcultural. I explain why I think we need human rights, which I characterise as ethical benchmarks. They constitute standards for a dignified human existence. Literature: To start, there are excellent articles on human rights in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

In this episode I briefly describe the events of the French Revolution and then turn my attention to the life and times of two prominent 'engaged philosophers': Voltaire and the Marquis de Condorcet. Both fought against the injustices of the Ancient Regime, i.e. the time prior to the French Revolution, when France was ruled by absolute monarchs. Through their active defence and rehabilitation of the victims of injustice both Voltaire and Condorcet brought to light the religious intolerance and the obscurantism of their age. I also briefly discuss the controversial German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel who became the philosopher of the French revolution. I conclude this episode with a brief look at engaged intellectual in our age: Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Noam Chomsky. Literature: A good, concise introduction to the ideas of the French Revolution is George Rudé, The French Revolution (1988). A classic, comprehensive study is Albert Soboul, The French Revolution 1787-1799 (English translation 1975). There are numerous biographies of Voltaire. For this episode I used Jean Orieux, Voltaire (2 volumes 1977). For Condorcet I used the brilliant biography of Elizabeth & Robert Badinter, Condorcet - Un Intellectuel en Politique (1988), which unfortunately has not been translated into English.

The next couple of episodes continue Part I on Political Philosophy.The next two episodes will discuss the impact philosophical ideas have had on the social and political world. In the current episode (17), I start with the influence John Locke's political philosophy had on the adoption of the English Bill of Rights in the wake of the Glorious Revolution (1688), as well as French philosophers and the American Declaration of Independence (Jefferson). Locke, the Enlightenment philosopher, is often seen as the Godfather of liberalism. His ideas laid the foundations for liberal democracies worldwide.In the following episode (18), I look at two French philosophers around the time of the French Revolution: Voltaire and Condorcet, and describe their fights for justice. Then I turn to Human Rights and the state of democracy in the face of the rise of populism.Literature:The classic source of liberalism is John Locke's The Two Treatises of Government, especially Part II, first published in 1690. His Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) is also worth reading. Every good book on political philosophy will discuss Locke's ideas and his influence. Voltaire's Lettres Philosophiques (1734), his Treatise on Religious Tolerance (1763) and his Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764) are well worth perusing.They give a flavour of Enlightenment ideas.

The question of whether humans enjoy free will (or not) has occupied people for centuries. Science has not yet found a definitive answer but we are all familiar with the phenomenon. When we want something (a mental event), we get up to get it (a physical event). When something happens to us (a physical event), we react with, say, sadness or joy (a mental event). How is this possible? How can physical events influence mental states? And how can mental states lead to physical events? In this Episode I introduce to rival accounts: determinism (which claims that we are not free agents) versus libertarianism (which holds that our mind are free to choose between options). I discuss the pros and cons of each position and conclude that I am more convinced by the libertarian argument, i.e. the belief in the freedom of the will, than determinism - unless proven otherwise. Literature: There is a vast amount of literature on free will, consciousness and the mind. I found the following helpful: Susan Blackmore, Consciousness-An Introduction (2003); Richard Swinburne (ed.), Free Will and Modern Science (2011). There are also good articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

In previous Episodes, I have made many references to the laws of nature. Laws of nature are the regularities in the natural world, which exist independently of our knowledge of them. But in the textbooks of science you find many equations which encode the natural regularities. These equations are the laws of science. The laws of science are only approximately true because the employment of mathematics involves the use of abstractions and idealisations. The laws of science are subject to modifications, but the laws of nature just are. I limit myself to two philosophical attempts to explain what the natural laws tell us about the natural world: the regularity view and the structural view. Literature: The material of this episode draws on my Introduction to the volume Laws of Nature , edited and introduced by Friedel Weinert (1995).

In this Episode, I discuss some systematic ways in which discoveries are made in science. This follows on from Episode 13 (A, B) which introduced thought and real experiments. In this Episode I look at methods - systematic ways - to go about scientific discoveries. There are three methods: two different forms of induction and deduction. Induction works either by inferring from some to all cases (from 'some ravens are black' to 'all ravens are black') or by the method of elimination: use the evidence to eliminate the wrong explanation. To illustrate the latter method (also known as abduction) I compare the work of a scientist who tries to solve problems, to the work of a detective who tries to solve a crime. The detective uses evidence ('clues') to eliminate potential suspects in order to identify the real culprit. The scientist uses evidence in order to identify the real solution to a scientific problem from amongst possible solutions. In between the two methods stands deductivism: according to this method a scientist makes a hypothesis - a bold conjecture - and then submits it to rigorous tests.Literature:I discuss these methods in more detail in two books: Friedel Weinert, Copernicus, Darwin & Freud (2009) and Karl Popper-Professional Philosopher and Public Intellectual (2022).

Part B of this Episode concentrates on imaginary and real experiments in the modern era. I introduce Foucaults' famous pendulum experiment (1859), which gave a visual demonstration that the Earth turns on its own axis. I propose that thought experiments answer 'what-if' questions about the natural world. They are models of possible worlds. The episode finishes with a discussion of the famous double-slit experiment on the atomic level. It started out as a mere thought experiment before becoming an iconic a real experiment. It demonstrates the weird behaviour of quantum particles, i.e. the wave-particle duality. Literature: You can find brief, handy descriptions of scientific experiments in Rom Harré, Great Scientific Experiments (1981) and George Johnson, The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments (2009). The material of episodes 13 (A, B) is based on Friedel Weinert, The Demons of Science (2016), where you will find many more references to experiments in science.

Episode 13 (A, B) is devoted to the topic of experiments in science: thought experiments and real experiments. They are as important as grand scientific theories. Part A focuses on thought and real experiments from antiquity to the 17th century. I explain the function of such experiments and discuss some famous examples. How do you 'prove' that the universe if infinite (Archytas of Tarentum, ca 430-345 BC), that the Earth rotates (Aristotle and Galileo) and how do you measure its circumference (Erastothenes, 240 BC), when you cannot make direct measurements? Listen to Part A to find out! Literature: You can find brief, handy descriptions of scientific experiments in Rom Harré, Great Scientific Experiments (1981) and George Johnson, The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments (2009). The material of episodes 13 (A, B) is based on Friedel Weinert, The Demons of Science (2016), where you will find many more references to experiments in science.

This episode is devoted to the topic of time travel; time travel in a conventional sense, which relies on time machines to travel either into the future or the past. (I do not discuss forms of time travel, which may be permissible by the laws of physics.) It is advisable to separate these two different scenarios. Time travel into the future - as in H. G. Wells's novel The Time Machine - leads to odd situations, giving rise to the opportunity of 'harvesting' future knowledge for its use in the present. For instance, you could observe the results of a lottery draw tomorrow, return to today and tick the winning numbers. However, time travel into the past leads to straightforward contradictions. It is agreed that the past is fixed and cannot be changed. But time travel into the past seems to imply that you can go back and change the past. Lots of possibilities seem to offer themselves. You could change world history, kill your younger self or simply change your appearance. Then the Second World War happened and did not happen! These contradictions seem to rule out time travel into the past. However, if you are willing to contemplate parallel universes, these logical inconsistencies can be avoided. You can travel from your own to another universe and do there, as I illustrate, what you are prevented from doing in your familiar universe. Literature:One of the most comprehensive books on time travel is P. J. Nahin, Time Machines (1993). The material for this episode is drawn from Friedel Weinert, The March of Time: Evolving Conceptions of Time in the Light of Scientific Discoveries (2013).

This episode continues the investigation into the nature of time. In particular it introduces two philosophical models of time, which are more in tune with scientific thinking. One is Newton's realist view of time. The other, in direct opposition to Newton, is the relational view of time. It was defended by Gottfried Wilhlem Leibniz (1646-1716) in the 17th century. Modern physics seems to be sympathetic to the relational view, at least according to some textbooks on the theory of relativity. I end this episode with a discussion of time in modern physics: the behaviour of atomic systems, and the behaviour of clocks in fast-moving reference frames (rockets) and gravitational fields (for example near or far away from the earth). I explain that GPS would not work without taking the result of Einstein's Special and General theory of relativity into account. Einstein's theories have led to a revolution in our understanding of time, including the question of time travel. Literature: The material for episodes 10 and 11 is drawn from Friedel Weinert, The Scientist as Philosopher: Philosophical Consequences of Great Scientific Discoveries (2004) and The March of Time: Evolving Conceptions of Time in the Light of Scientific Discoveries (2013).

Episodes 10 and 11 are an inquiry into the nature of time. It is so large a topic that I have split it into two parts. The current episode, 10, discusses aspects of the measurement of time and the use of clocks. It is easier to discuss the measurement of time than to deal with the philosophical question of the nature of time. In the current episode, after having argued that clocks need to rely on precise and regular natural processes, I briefly mention some cultural and scientific conceptions of time. Then I begin to look at philosophical models of time. In the current episode I introduce idealist views of time, which make the mind the instrument of time (Saint Augustine, Emmanuel Kant). I explain why they are unsatisfactory. This episode ends with a look at units of time, that is natural, conventional and semi-conventional units of time. Whilst natural units make a reference to natural processes (summer must coincide with the highest position of the sun in the sky), conventional units of time (New Year, the lengths of the calendar months) make no reference to natural events. Episode 11 continues the investigation into the nature of time. Literature: You can find a very nice overview of time travel in science and literature in P.J. Nahin, Time Machines (1993). The material for episodes 10 and 11 is drawn from Friedel Weinert, The Scientist as Philosopher: Philosophical Consequences of Great Scientific Discoveries (2004) and The March of Time: Evolving Conceptions of Time in the Light of Scientific Discoveries (2013).

In this episode I look at an important aspect of the history of science, namely the occurrence of scientific revolutions. I start with a brief history of the Scientific Revolution (1543-1687), discussing the contributions of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. Their achievements suggest some useful criteria, which help to understand what a scientific revolution is. I look at Kuhn's work on scientific revolutions but, for the reasons explained, give preference to an alternative model (the chain-of-reasoning model). I proceed to test this model with respect to Darwinism and Freudianism. Darwin passes the test: he was the author of a true scientific revolution. Although Freud claimed that he had completed the Copernican revolution, he does not pass the test. The work of all three of them - Copernicus, Darwin and Freud - had important consequences for the way humans look at the world. The consequence of the Copernican revolution was that humans could no longer see themselves as the centre of the universe. The consequence of the Darwinian revolution was that humans could no longer see themselves as the crown of creation. Freud did not instigate a scientific revolution but his work had a massive impact on Western culture. He 'created' homo psychologicus - the psychological human. Literature: The classic studies of scientific revolutions are Th. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970) and I. B. Cohen, Revolution in Science (1985). This episode is based on my book Copernicus, Darwin & Freud (2009). Further literature on shepherd.com.

In this episode my aim is a comparison of the natural and the social sciences. My purpose is to understand the similarities and dissimilarities between the natural and the social sciences. Their respective remit is to understand the natural and the social world. How do they achieve understanding of their respective areas of research? They both employ explanation and prediction as tools. These are the similarities. But explanation and prediction in the social sciences are not the same as in the natural sciences. The reason, I propose, has to do with the regularities, which they employ. The natural sciences employ natural laws but, for reason I explain, there are no social laws, whose status would be comparable to natural laws. The regularities of the social sciences are (statistical) trends and patterns of behaviour. They can be reversed or modified but the laws of nature cannot be changed. Literature: The material in this episode is based on Friedel Weinert, Copernicus, Darwin & Freud: Revolutions in the History and Philosophy of Science (2009). A nice introduction to the philosophy of the social sciences is Peter T. Manicas, A Realist Philosophy of Social Science: Explanation and Understanding (2006).

Given the enormous prestige of science, the temptation to call a discipline 'scientific' is understandable; astrology, creationism, Marxism and even psychoanalysis are examples. But how do we distinguish genuine science from pseudo-science? After having defined 'knowledge' I aim to answer this question by proposing some criteria, which should help to draw a line. Traditionally, it was thought that scientific knowledge consists in generalising from the observation of some cases ('some swans') to all cases ('all swans'). This method is called induction. We use inductive reasoning abundantly in our daily lives. Unfortunately, it sometimes fails and it does not do a proper job of distinguishing science from pseudo-science. A better way is the rigorous testing of hypotheses. This method is called testability (or falsifiability). When this method is employed in case studies, astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis do not pass the test. As long as a theory is testable (by experiments, observations) it is scientific, even if it fails the tests. Literature: If you do not want to read Karl Popper's classic book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), you may want to look at Popper's Unended Quest (1976). I discuss this material (and case studies) in my book Copernicus, Darwin and Freud: Revolutions in the History and Philosophy of Science (2009). Almost all Introductions to Philosophy of Science will discuss this topic (see suggested books in Episode 6).

In this episode, I describe and explain what history and philosophy of science is all about. I like to compare science to a workshop with lots of tools for scientists to understand the natural and the social world. There is of course a lot of mathematics, especially in the hard sciences and economics. They employ theories and models. Scientists also use tools such as explanations, predictions, the laws of nature, theory testing, time and scientific revolutions etc.. But they leave it to philosophers to clarify the use of these tools. Science is a human activity, which has had a massive impact on civilisation. Questions about the character of science naturally arise. It is the job of the history and philosophy of science to provide answers to these questions. Literature: There are numerous introductions to the philosophy of science; why not start with Samir Okasha: A Very Short Introduction (2016), K. W. Staley, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science ((2014) or Anthony O'Hear, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1989)?

In this episode I discuss the distinction between open and closed societies. Although this distinction dates back to the beginning of the 20th century, it is as topical today as it was 100 years ago. The rise of populism and the impact of social media have made a discussion of this distinction urgent again. And there are still numerous countries around the world, which we would regard as closed. So what is an open, as opposed to a closed society? By which criteria should we call a society 'open' or 'closed'? To address these questions, I consider influential ideas of sociologist and philosophers. Literature:-K. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1957, 2 volumes)-F. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944/2014)-A. Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (1991)-J. Habermas, Postmetaphysical Thinking (1992)-F. Weinert, ‘The Open Society Revisited’, in: Social Sciences  2025, 14 (3), 118; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030118

In this episode I concentrate on the notion of social or distributive justice. That is the question of how the social benefits and burdens are to be distributed amongst citizens in a given society. It is one of the fundamental principles which every society must address. The question already occupied the Greeks but I will focus on some modern views. These views attribute to the State various degrees of involvement in the settlement of social justice. I will discuss Nozick's minimal account, John Rawls's account of justice as fairness, Amartya Sen's capability approach and finally egalitarian, in particular, Marxist views of social justice. Literature: - R. Nozick, Anarchy, State & Utopia (1974) defends a minimal involvement of the state. -J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971) introduces the idea that justice is fairness, which is based on two fundamental principles. -A. Sen, The Idea of Justice (2009) provides some fair criticism of Rawls and introduces an alternative approach -M. Walzer, Spheres of Justice (1983)

In this episode I discuss freedom in a political sense, especially republican freedom. This notion was already discussed in antiquity: I begin with a quote from Cicero. But the focus is on republican freedom from the Age of Enlightenment to the present day. I look at the compatibility or incompatibility of republicanism with monarchy and distinguish republican freedom from more liberal views of freedom. I conclude with the question of civil disobedience with reference to the surprisingly modern views of Étienne de la Boétie (1530-63) - a French political philosopher, lawyer and friend of Montaigne - of how political obedience is obtained. Literature: The classic text on Republicanism is Thomas Paine: The Rights of Man (1791/2012). Modern defences of republicanism are: Philip Petit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997); F. Lovett, A General Theory of Domination and Justice (2010).

In this episode I address the question of the nature of power. A philosophical enquiry demands answers to a number of questions: How should power be characterised? Who possesses power? And under what circumstances can they resist power? The question can be addressed from various perspectives. I discuss Nietzsche's 'will to power', Foucault's micro-conception of power and Weber's sociological account of power. A consideration of power includes an answer to the question why people tend to comply with power. Literature: Steven Lukes, Power (2005).

In this Episode, I define Political Philosophy as an 'investigation into the nature, causes and effects of good and bad government.' I explain what this means and argue that we need Political Philosophy because it constructs conceptual models of fundamental notions - democracy, fairness, freedom, justice - which influence the laws, rules and regulations in society. I characterise conceptual models of networks of interconnected ideas and concepts. Examples follow in the next few episodes on power, freedom, social justice, open and closed societies. Literature: I found the following books to be good, helpful introductions to political philosophy: - Alan Haworth, Understanding the Political Philosophers: From Ancient to Modern Times (2003 - David Miller, Political Philosophy. A Very Short Introduction (2003) - Jonathan Wolff, An Introduction to Political Philosophy (2022) With books, it is often a question of taste, i.e. whether you like the style of the author.

In these podcasts I will concentrate on some topical issues in Political Philosophy, and later in the History and Philosophy of Science. Broadly speaking, Political Philosophy is a social science. So there is a natural transition from issues in Political Philosophy to topics in the Philosophy of Science. The Introduction explains my approach to philosophy. It focuses on philosophical problems - I give some typical examples - and attempts to solve them, rather than on the ideas of the 'great thinkers'. In fact, I follow Karl Popper who described this approach as 'situational logic'. It is an assessment of respective problem situations: an analysis of the problems and attempts to solve them. (You can learn more about this approach from my intellectual biography of Karl Popper - Professional Philosopher and Public Intellectual. Springer 2022) Episode 1 addresses three questions: What is Political Philosophy (in contrast to Political Science)? Why do we need Political Philosophy and which purpose do its findings serve. In the following episodes I first turn to some other problems in Political Philosophy, as the description of each episode shows. In later episodes, I will turn to some selected problems in the Philosophy of Science, and then alternate between Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Science. Literature: Generally, you will find articles on all the topics I discuss on either the scholarly Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the more accessible Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.