The Rest is Uncertain

Aiming for truth and the dangers of retreating to narratives.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter invites listeners to think about why they make the decisions and choices that they make, which refers to our capacity for agency, whereby our beliefs and desires cause us to interact with the world deliberately or intentionally. He then broadens the topic to focus on the types of causal explanations that are appropriate in the major disciplines and intellectual traditions. If we assume that explanations in the sciences are structured by well-tested laws and theories, we can also assume that the concept of causality has its most natural home in the context of the natural world and science. However, when we shift to consider events and explanations in which we humans/persons are directly involved, things become less clear, because while intentional and causal agency, which plays a central role in disciplines such as history, social studies, the law, politics, etc., the nature and status of such causation seems puzzling, because these disciplines are not governed by universal laws and theories.In line with the views of analytic philosopher Donald Davidson, causal explanations in these domains – indeed, even in relatively simple contexts involving our everyday agency – rely on appealing to a holistic network of mental states such as belief, desire and intention. In other words, there is no single, complete causal pathway outside the domain of the sciences, because our mental states are interwoven and bound together. This sense of holism relating to agency raises questions about the status of history, for example, in which we remain committed to finding what is true – as in all cases of inquiry – but must acknowledge a level of subjective interpretation on the part of historians and commentators, who make choices about what actions and events to focus on, as well as the language they use in describing and reporting them.Laurance casts a critical eye on what is becoming an increasingly popular tendency providing explanations in the humanities and social sciences, especially contemporary and contested fields such as politics, namely, to propose that explanations in these domains commonly take the form of narrative, in which the ideal of truth or truthfulness gives way to such elements as believability, “telling a good story”, etc. While acknowledging the benefits of narratives and stories in our lives, he relates this tendency to the growth of populism and the ascendency of political leaders who sow tribal divisions using narratives about “us” and “them”, etc. He maintains that such ideals as truthfulness remain important, and points, yet again to the potential of dialogue as an appropriate context for deliberating about matters of importance, whether they be strictly scientific or not. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Are there different types of dialogues with different aims and structures?In this episode, Dr. Laurance Splitter finally engages in a real dialogue with another person, in this case, Professor Maughn Rollins Gregory, Director of the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children in the USA, and an outstanding scholar and teacher in both education and philosophy. Maughn has written extensively about the nature of dialogue itself and this is the subject of their conversation.In previous episodes, Laurance expressed some puzzlement over the question of whether there are different forms of dialogue with different aims and structures. He and Maughn share a common background in the theory and practice of the community of inquiry, where the inquiry – and the ensuing dialogue – are driven by a commitment to solving a problem or answering a question which is puzzling or intriguing. In this kind of process, our reasoning “riders” tend to lead the way over our more intuitive or emotive “elephants” (using a metaphor previously attributed to Jonathan Haidt), although it will still be driven by such emotions as curiosity, surprise, wonder, intellectual humility, etc.In previous episodes, Laurance has proposed a slogan for this kind of inquiry and dialogue: we aim for truth but are extremely wary of proclaiming that we have found it. Coming from the philosophical tradition of American Pragmatism, Maughn prefers to talk about aiming for what is most reasonable to believe, rather than for truth per se, but they are willing to live with this difference for the sake of the discussion.Laurance invites Maughn to address types of dialogue that are not part of, or aimed at, inquiry, particularly the dialogue required when different groups not only disagree on fundamental issues, but are being led by their rampaging “elephants” which prevent any real dialogue from even taking place, because each side is so committed to its own narrative that it does not even recognize the legitimacy of the other side. In short, they are not willing or able to treat one another as persons. Citing scholars including Emily Robertson, Douglas Walton, Cleo Cherry Holmes, Miles Holton and Stephen Festmeier, Maughn provides some examples of different sorts of dialogue with their own aims and structures (aiming at affirming solidarity or strengthening relationships, or developing a mutual sense of personhood through group dynamic exercises where inquiry itself is not involved, etc.). Those engaged in such dialogues are often learning how to negotiate together; there is no “truth” to be discovered or constructed, rather the aim is working out what we can all live with.Maughn and Laurance agree that regardless of which type of dialogue is involved, neither those directly engaged or those looking on from outside should try to pre-empt the outcomes of the dialogue. Like inquiry, dialogue has a life of its own and we should follow it where it leads. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

A concept both familiar and puzzling.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter begins with some examples which reveal that the ideaof identity has been, and is still, used to mean different things. Heraclitus asserted that no man can step into the same river twice, because it is not the same river and he is not the same man; a parent insists that their child can’t wear the same shirt again because it is dirty; and a party-goer laments that someone else is wearing exactly the same jacket that she just purchased forthe occasion.Laurance provides a brief historical account of the concept of identity, particularly since Enlightenment times, pointing out that when applied to persons and not just objects, identityover time – where we assert that A and B are the same – can have either a quantitative or aqualitative sense: the former when we mean that A and B are literally one and the same individual, and the latter when we mean either that A and B share certain characteristics or qualities – including identifying with the same group or collective (nation, religion, culture…), or that A and B can never be the same because at least some of A’s qualities have changed by thetime “it” becomes B. Qualitative interpretations of sameness are common in the social sciences,which (confusingly) combine individual and social identity. And the rejection of any kind of stableidentity has been expressed within Postmodernism and Buddhism.In closing the episode, Laurance indicates that in the next episode he will defend a quantitativesense of identity when it comes to individual objects and persons, one which steers a pathbetween the extremes of crude individualism and tribal collectivism. He leaves listeners hangingwith a familiar example of the school photo (“Can you find me in the photo of my 3 rd grade class?”), and the hint of a logical distinction between words that pick out, or refer to, things(including people), and words that characterize, group, or describe those things picked out. Quantitative or strict identity focuses on the former, while qualitative identity (or similarity) getsinto trouble by focusing on the latter. He finishes with a promise to reveal how getting clearabout identity in general, and personal identity in particular, will pave the way toward resolvingsome of the social, political and moral problems confronting us today.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Balancing commonality and diversity in determining the merits of the communities to which we belong. In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter traces the tensions between individualism and various forms of collectivism, from the end of the Cold War (which heralded “The End of History”, except that it didn’t!), to the present day. The ideal of democratic liberalism became distorted as the result of globalization and growing disparities between the “haves” and “have nots”, resulting in a present-day scenario in which a very few possess most of the world’s wealth. Growing dissatisfaction in many Western countries has led to a destructive level of “tribalism”, with those on both sides of the political spectrum aligning themselves with those who are “like themselves” and distancing themselves from those who are, in various respects, “different”. This situation has been exacerbated by opportunistic and unscrupulous political leaders who encourage a strong sense of nationalism and cast a distorted glance to a past when we all lived among those who were just like us. Laurance then focuses on Australia and its claims to be a “multicultural” society, suggesting that “multi-ghettoised” might be a better descriptor. After hinting at the problematic nature of the concept of culture, he looks more closely at a disturbing trend: the growth, in economic and numerical terms, of private schooling in relation to public schooling. He notes that private schools do not provide the kinds of diversity that exist – or could exist – in public schools and, as a result, young people are not encouraged to expand their thinking and mindsets beyond that which is already familiar to them. He is particularly critical of the implications of students attending gender-specific schools. He challenges governments to become more involved in or, at least, more aware of, the teaching styles and curricula of all schools. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter reflects on the evolution of the podcast’s title from “Puzzlement and Passion without Certainty” to “The Rest is Uncertain: At the Intersection of Philosophy and Public Life.” He explores the challenge of navigating between extreme individualism and unhealthy tribalism, asking what kind of community truly fosters meaningful dialogue. Drawing on his work in Philosophy for Children, Laurance introduces the concept of a community of inquiry — a relational network where individuals see themselves as “one among others.” Such communities aim to seek truth without prematurely claiming it — “aiming but not proclaiming.” Grounded in self-awareness, mutual awareness, and shared engagement with the world, this model rejects passive, transmission-style teaching in favor of collaborative knowledge-building through dialogue and language.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

There are reasons for thinking that all is not well in our schools. In this episode, host Laurance Splitter explores some of the difficulties experienced by teachers and students in our schools and classrooms. Many teachers are quitting because they are compelled to focus on administrative and assessment tasks, to the detriment of teaching excellence. They are experiencing greater levels of stress and anxiety, in a cycle which also embraces students and parents. One factor behind this growing sense of crisis is society’s failure to treat teachers as professionals who are empowered to make sensible decisions and exercise good judgement.Another factor is the tension between meeting the educational needs of all students, and the social reality of unprecedented forms of intellectual, cultural, physical, and economic diversity – a tension most clearly seen in public schools. Shifting the focus to students, attrition rates are increasing, meaning that more students leave school before they reach year twelve. Familiar issues of choosing between a traditional academic curriculum and one that serves future vocational needs remain unresolved. Responding to these challenges, Laurance goes back to such venerable educational ideals of teaching the whole person and cultivating powerful thinking in students. He advocates for a renewed emphasis on speaking and listening in the form of dialogue. Dialogue is not merely a way of thinking out loud, it produces good thinking. It invites students to think and talk about issues of importance to them, and offers a much-needed alternative to the echo chambers of casual conversation and social media. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

The challenge of balancing our intuitive “elephants” and our reasoning “riders”.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter expands on the role of dialogue and introduces philosophy’s “three Cs” — concepts that are common, contestable, and central. He cites the absurdist humor behind Monty Python to illustrate what happens when concepts are pushed to their extremes. Enlarging on his central theme, Laurance cites the tensions between individualism and collectivism, the private and the public, and looking inward versus looking beyond ourselves. He then discusses the housing crisis in our society, as a practical example of these tensions. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn