Physicist Louis Vervoort Pushes AI to Settle Philosophical Debates

AI Will End Philosophy, Physicist Claims — Sabine Hossenfelder

Sabine Hossenfelder

Artificial intelligence cannot render philosophy obsolete because determining what constitutes a valid explanation is itself an irreducible philosophical problem that empirical algorithms cannot resolve.

AI-assisted summary of AI Will End Philosophy, Physicist Claims — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published:

Key ideas

  • Physicist and philosopher Louis Vervoort argues in a new book that artificial intelligence will soon render much of philosophy obsolete by formalizing debates into empirical, theoretical-physics-style problem solving. (0:00)
  • Vervoort proposes evaluating philosophical ideas through a 'maximally coherent theory' framework, scoring theories by counting answered questions and contradictions using AI tools like ChatGPT. (0:00)
  • Sabine Hossenfelder rejects both Vervoort's approach and standard academic rebuttals, arguing that defining what constitutes a 'best' explanation is fundamentally a philosophical question that science cannot quantify. (2:39)
  • Awarding Vervoort's book a 6/10 on her 'bullshit meter,' Hossenfelder predicts AI will mostly be used by academics to automate the writing of dense papers, potentially forcing the field to raise its standards. (4:57)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by Sabine Hossenfelder on September 19, 2026, this video examines a recent debate triggered by a physicist who authored a book claiming artificial intelligence will soon render philosophy obsolete. As described in the video's notes, while a philosopher has pushed back against this premise, Hossenfelder argues that both participants in the controversy are missing the fundamental point.

## TL;DR Hossenfelder evaluates Louis Vervoort's book *Problem Solving in Philosophy*, which contends that philosophy should be treated like theoretical physics by using AI to objectively score candidate theories for maximal coherence. She critiques Vervoort's selective ChatGPT experiments and his dismissal of foundational issues like the problem of induction, while also faulting academic philosophy for responding with bloated, obvious counterarguments. Ultimately, she asserts that philosophy exists specifically to tackle unscientific or pre-empirical questions that AI scoring metrics cannot resolve, rating the claim that AI will end philosophy at a 6 out of 10 on her 'bullshit meter' while predicting AI will mostly just automate the writing of unread academic papers.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation is dry, deadpan, and unapologetically pragmatic, punctuated by Hossenfelder's trademark self-deprecating wit and sharp dismissals of academic pretension. It feels like an irreverent reality check from a working physicist who happily pokes fun at both long-winded philosophers and overconfident physicists trying to conquer outside disciplines. The narrative arc moves from humorous deconstructions of prompt-engineering 'experiments' to substantive, incisive epistemological distinctions, maintaining an engaging and skeptical vibe throughout.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) Physicist and philosopher Louis Vervoort argues in a new book that artificial intelligence will soon render much of philosophy obsolete by formalizing debates into empirical, theoretical-physics-style problem solving. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) Vervoort proposes evaluating philosophical ideas through a 'maximally coherent theory' framework, scoring theories by counting answered questions and contradictions using AI tools like ChatGPT. - [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) Sabine Hossenfelder rejects both Vervoort's approach and standard academic rebuttals, arguing that defining what constitutes a 'best' explanation is fundamentally a philosophical question that science cannot quantify. - [04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=297s) Awarding Vervoort's book a 6/10 on her 'bullshit meter,' Hossenfelder predicts AI will mostly be used by academics to automate the writing of dense papers, potentially forcing the field to raise its standards.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) Louis Vervoort, holder of PhDs in both physics and philosophy, authored 'Problem Solving in Philosophy: How to Do Philosophy in the Age of Ultra-Intelligent AI' claiming AI can settle core philosophical debates. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) Vervoort asserts that philosophy should adopt the overarching methodology of natural science and theoretical physics rather than remain divided in perpetual debate. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) Under Vervoort's framework, AI selects the 'maximally coherent theory' by tallying answered questions, accounted counterexamples, and avoided contradictions. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) In an informal test, Vervoort prompted GPT-4 on the nature of causality and declared the model correct when it chose counterfactual causality, which happened to match his personal stance. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) Vervoort anticipates AI resolving topics such as free will and the problem of induction, while excluding existential questions like the existence of God. - [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) A philosopher's formal critique argued that AI can assemble arguments but cannot replace human subjective reflection, which Hossenfelder viewed as a 15-page statement of the obvious. - [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) Attempting to turn philosophy into an empirical science misunderstands that philosophy exists specifically to investigate questions where empirical data cannot provide an answer. - [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) Deciding which quantitative metrics define the 'best' explanation is an unsolved philosophical question that cannot be automated away by science. - [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) Vervoort dismisses the problem of induction as an unprovable operative axiom, which avoids the core philosophical question of why empirical regularity holds in reality. - [04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=297s) Hossenfelder predicts academic philosophers will inevitably use AI to automate the production of unread, verbose papers due to human laziness. - [04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=297s) The widespread automation of paper drafting could paradoxically force human philosophers to improve the overall quality and substance of their ideas. - [04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=297s) Hossenfelder rates Vervoort's book a 6 out of 10 on her 'bullshit meter,' recognizing value in formalizing explanatory metrics while rejecting the premise that AI ends philosophy.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) Louis Vervoort's Proposal to Sciencify Philosophy

A physicist has written a book arguing that artificial intelligence will soon render much of philosophy obsolete, prompting a rebuttal from a philosopher. Sabine Hossenfelder assesses the dispute by noting: "And I think, well, they're both wrong." The book, titled *Problem Solving in Philosophy: How to Do Philosophy in the Age of Ultra-Intelligent AI*, is written by Louis Vervoort. Vervoort is not an uninitiated outsider; after earning a PhD in physics, he completed a second doctorate in philosophy—leading Sabine to joke that he is "not your stereotypical ignorant physicist with a YouTube channel, you have me for that."

Vervoort's core contention is that philosophy ought to be practiced like an empirical natural science in general, and theoretical physics in particular. He asserts that philosophy has matured sufficiently to reach reasonably definitive conclusions on core debates, claiming that natural science and theoretical physics share a single overarching method that philosophers should adopt. Under this view, philosophical theories should be evaluated by identifying the "maximally coherent theory"—the framework that yields the highest number of coherent answers to well-posed questions, accounts for the most counterexamples, and minimizes contradictions with accepted background knowledge. Because this process largely reduces to tallying answered questions and contradictions, Vervoort argues that AI is uniquely suited to perform it.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Maximally Coherent Theory Evaluation accDescr: Flowchart illustrating Louis Vervoort's proposed AI method for selecting the best philosophical theory. subgraph Input ["Philosophical Theories"] T["Candidate Hypotheses"] end subgraph Metrics ["AI Quantitative Scoring"] M1["Maximize Answers to Well-Posed Problems"] M2["Explain Counterexamples"] M3["Minimize Contradictions with Known Facts"] end subgraph Output ["Outcome"] MCT["Maximally Coherent Theory"] end T --> Metrics M1 --> MCT M2 --> MCT M3 --> MCT ```

To support his thesis, Vervoort conducted an informal "experiment" targeting the problem of defining causality. He prompted ChatGPT (GPT-4 at the time) to determine the superior notion of causality. When the model answered "counterfactual causality," Vervoort deemed the response correct—primarily because it matched his own favored definition. Sabine dryly observes, "Maybe doing philosophy like theoretical physics is not the flex he thinks it is." Beyond causality, Vervoort anticipates AI resolving issues such as free will (which he considers clearly nonexistent) and induction (which he labels a pseudoproblem). However, he stops short of claiming AI will settle all philosophical questions; broader existential inquiries like the meaning of life or the existence of God remain unsettled, at least "until ChatGPT 7.8 max pro ultra agrees with him."

- **Author**: Louis Vervoort (holds dual PhDs in Physics and Philosophy). - **Book Title**: *Problem Solving in Philosophy: How to Do Philosophy in the Age of Ultra-Intelligent AI*. - **Methodological Claim**: Quantifying explanatory power via the "maximally coherent theory" through algorithmic counting of answers, counterexamples, and contradictions. - **ChatGPT Experiment**: Prompted GPT-4 on causality; the AI selected counterfactual causality, aligning with the author's own preferred theory.

---

[02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) The Philosopher's Rebuttal and the Problem of Induction

Before the book's release, Vervoort published a paper presenting the same thesis, prompting a formal critique from a philosopher titled *"Can we automate philosophy through AI? And should we want to?"* The philosopher argues that if philosophy is defined as generating hypotheses and assessing arguments, an AI could theoretically execute it; however, if philosophy is understood as thinking through these conceptual puzzles oneself, machines cannot substitute for human reflection. Sabine expresses frustration with the response, remarking that stretching such a straightforward observation into a 15-page paper exemplifies her main grievance with academic philosophy: using "loads of words to say the pathetically obvious."

At the same time, Sabine finds Vervoort's physicist-centric approach equally unconvincing. Determining how to quantify what makes an explanation "best" is fundamentally a philosophical puzzle in its own right. Trying to "sciencify" philosophy fundamentally misunderstands its role: philosophy exists precisely to interrogate problems that science cannot—or cannot yet—answer. While certain topics eventually cross the boundary into empirical science (consciousness is undergoing this transition now, and free will is likely to follow), scientific methodologies cannot subsume foundational philosophical premises.

This shortcoming is particularly evident in Vervoort's treatment of the problem of induction—the classic question of why empirical regularity holds over time, why the laws of physics remain constant, why the sun rises daily, why atoms remain stable, and "why does Sabine keep making stupid jokes." Appealing to historical observation constitutes circular reasoning, as it attempts to validate induction by using induction. Vervoort circumvents this by dismissing the question as meaningless, arguing induction should be treated as an unprovable axiom that requires no justification. Sabine counters that while induction must be adopted as an axiom *within* science to enable scientific inquiry, asking *why* that axiom holds in reality is a philosophical question outside the scope of science. Simply declaring non-scientific questions to be invalid is a pseudo-argument that "even Claude could tell" fails scrutiny.

- **Philosophical Counter-argument**: Distinguishes between automated argument generation and subjective, deliberate contemplation. - **The Epistemic Boundary**: Philosophy addresses issues where empirical data and scientific testing are unavailable. - **The Problem of Induction**: Justifying inductive consistency cannot be achieved empirically without circular reasoning; labeling an operative axiom a non-question evades the foundational issue.

---

[04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=297s) The Reality of Philosophical Discourse and Saily Sponsor

Reflecting on both arguments, Sabine concludes that both scholars miss a far more mundane reality: "humans are by default lazy." Given that a substantial volume of published academic philosophy consists of dense prose that few ever read, academics will inevitably offload paper writing to AI systems—a transition Sabine believes is already underway. Her hope is that widespread automation will ultimately pressure philosophers to elevate the substantive quality of their discourse.

Evaluating the book overall, Sabine awards it a 6 out of 10 on her "bullshit meter." Her rating remains relatively moderate because she believes Vervoort's attempt to formally quantify explanatory value has merit as an analytical tool; she simply rejects the premise that it will make philosophical thinking obsolete. She quips that even if artificial intelligence were to render the discipline completely redundant, "philosophers will spend the next fifty years debating whether that actually happened."

The video concludes with a sponsorship segment for Saily, an eSIM data provider designed for international travel. Sabine explains that an eSIM allows travelers to circumvent steep roaming charges by switching directly to local digital plans, while also offering practical use cases such as keeping SIM-free backup phones connected or configuring a virtual location. She highlights the user setup—installing the app, selecting an overseas data plan, entering the code SABINE for a 15% discount, and activating the eSIM profile—alongside customer protections including 24/7 support and a money-back guarantee if the profile fails on a given handset.

- **Bullshit Meter Rating**: 6/10 (acknowledges value in quantifying explanatory strength, despite overreaching claims). - **Future of Academic AI**: Anticipates widespread automated generation of papers due to human convenience, potentially raising standards for human contributions. - **Saily eSIM Features**: Travel roaming mitigation, secondary phone connectivity, virtual location settings, 24/7 customer service, and a money-back guarantee with promo code SABINE.

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) And I think, well, they're both wrong. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) not your stereotypical ignorant physicist with a YouTube channel, you have me for that. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) Maybe doing philosophy like theoretical physics is not the flex he thinks it is. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=0s) until ChatGPT 7.8 max pro ultra agrees with him. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) Can we automate philosophy through AI? And should we want to? — Critique Paper Title

> [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) loads of words to say the pathetically obvious. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) why does Sabine keep making stupid jokes. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=159s) even Claude could tell — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=297s) humans are by default lazy. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q&t=297s) philosophers will spend the next fifty years debating whether that actually happened. — Sabine Hossenfelder

## Mentioned Louis Vervoort, Sabine Hossenfelder, ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, Problem Solving in Philosophy: How to Do Philosophy in the Age of Ultra-Intelligent AI, Saily

## Video description 🌎 Get an exclusive 15% discount on Saily data plans! Use the code SABINE at checkout. Download the Saily app or go to: https://saily.com/sabine ⛵

A physicist has written an entire book arguing that artificial intelligence will soon make philosophy obsolete. A philosopher disagrees. I think they're both missing the point. Let's take a look.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-17756-8

#philosophy #ai #sciencenews #physics

👕T-shirts, mugs, posters and more: ➜ https://sabines-store.dashery.com/ 💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg 👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine 📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/ 📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/ 👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC 🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join 📚 Buy my book ➜ https://amzn.to/3HSAWJW

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvQtxc9R3Q)

中文简报

物理学家Louis Vervoort主张借助AI平息哲学争端 人工智能无法淘汰哲学，因为界定何为有效解释本身就是一个不可化约的哲学问题，经验算法无法予以解决。 Hossenfelder评估了Louis Vervoort的著作《Problem Solving in Philosophy》，该书主张应将哲学视作理论物理学，利用AI对候选理论进行客观打分以实现最大融贯性。她批评了Vervoort选择性的ChatGPT实验以及对归纳问题等基础议题的忽视，同时也指责学院派哲学给出的反驳流于冗长且浅显。她最终断言，哲学的存在正是为了处理AI评分指标无法解决的非科学或前经验问题；在她的“胡扯指数（bullshit meter）”中，“AI将终结哲学”这一论断被打出了6/10的分数，同时她预测AI多半只会被用来自动化撰写无人阅读的学术论文。 物理学家兼哲学家Louis Vervoort在一本新书中主张，人工智能将通过把争论形式化为经验性的、类似理论物理学的问题解决模式，很快使大部分哲学变得过时。 (0:00) Vervoort提议通过“最大融贯理论”框架来评估哲学观点，利用ChatGPT等AI工具统计已回答的问题和矛盾之处，从而对理论进行量化打分。 (0:00) Sabine Hossenfelder既反对Vervoort的方法，也不赞同常规的学术界反驳，她认为界定何为“最佳”解释从根本上说是一个科学无法量化的哲学问题。 (2:39) Hossenfelder在其“胡扯指数”上给Vervoort的书评出6/10分，并预测AI主要将被学者用于自动化撰写晦涩难懂的论文，这或许会倒逼该领域提升自身标准。 (4:57)

Reading summary

Physicist and philosopher Louis Vervoort argues that artificial intelligence can settle core philosophical debates by treating the discipline like an empirical science, but Sabine Hossenfelder contends that both Vervoort and his academic critics fundamentally misunderstand the boundary between science and philosophy. Quantifying Coherence to Automate Philosophy (0:00) In his book 'Problem Solving in Philosophy: How to Do Philosophy in the Age of Ultra-Intelligent AI', Louis Vervoort asserts that philosophy should adopt the unified method of theoretical physics and the natural sciences. Under his proposed framework, theories are assessed by identifying the 'maximally coherent theory'—one that answers the highest number of well-posed problems, resolves counterexamples, and minimizes contradictions with established knowledge. Because this model reduces evaluation largely to counting contradictions and answers, Vervoort maintains that AI systems are ideally equipped to carry it out. The Epistemic Boundary and Empirical Limits (2:39) A philosopher's rebuttal claimed that AI cannot replace philosophy if the field is defined as the personal act of conceptual contemplation. Sabine Hossenfelder finds both sides lacking, arguing that determining what constitutes the 'best' explanation is itself a philosophical question that cannot be automated away. Furthermore, she stresses that philosophy exists to address problems that science cannot yet answer empirically, such as foundational premises. The Problem of Induction and Foundational Axioms (2:39) The limits of Vervoort's scientific approach emerge in his treatment of the problem of induction. Justifying the constancy of natural laws through past observation relies on circular reasoning by using induction to prove itself. Vervoort sidesteps this by declaring induction an unprovable axiom that requires no justification, effectively treating the inquiry as a pseudoproblem. Hossenfelder counters that while science must accept induction as a working axiom, questioning why the axiom holds in reality remains a valid philosophical inquiry outside empirical science's domain. Automation in Academic Philosophy (4:57) Hossenfelder predicts that because academics seek convenience, scholars will increasingly delegate dense philosophical paper writing to AI models, a shift she believes has already begun. Awarding Vervoort's book a 6 out of 10 on her 'bullshit meter', she notes that while formalizing explanatory metrics has analytical value, it will not render philosophical inquiry obsolete. Even if artificial intelligence were capable of making philosophical inquiry redundant, Hossenfelder observes that the academic community would likely spend decades debating whether that obsolescence had actually occurred.

Source quotes

[0:00] Sabine Hossenfelder: And I think, well, they're both wrong. [0:00] Sabine Hossenfelder: not your stereotypical ignorant physicist with a YouTube channel, you have me for that. [0:00] Sabine Hossenfelder: Maybe doing philosophy like theoretical physics is not the flex he thinks it is. [0:00] Sabine Hossenfelder: until ChatGPT 7.8 max pro ultra agrees with him. [2:39] Critique Paper Title: Can we automate philosophy through AI? And should we want to? [2:39] Sabine Hossenfelder: loads of words to say the pathetically obvious. [2:39] Sabine Hossenfelder: why does Sabine keep making stupid jokes. [2:39] Sabine Hossenfelder: even Claude could tell [4:57] Sabine Hossenfelder: humans are by default lazy. [4:57] Sabine Hossenfelder: philosophers will spend the next fifty years debating whether that actually happened.

Original transcript

[0:00] A physicist has written a book explaining [0:03] how artificial intelligence will  make much of philosophy obsolete, [0:07] soon. A philosopher thinks otherwise. And I  think, well, they’re both wrong. Let me explain. [0:14] The new book comes from Louis Vervoort who  started out with a PhD in physics but then [0:20] did a second PhD in philosophy. So this is not  your stereotypical ignorant physicist with a [0:26] YouTube channel, you have me for that. The book is titled “Problem Solving in [0:31] Philosophy: How to Do Philosophy in the Age of  Ultra-Intelligent AI.” To make a long story short, [0:38] the author argues that philosophy should  be done like a natural science in general, [0:43] and like theoretical physics in  particular. As he writes in the book, [0:48] quote: “philosophy is now mature enough  to come to reasonably solid answers to key [0:53] problems” and “there is one overarching  method to do so, in essence the same [0:59] method as the natural sciences use to obtain  answers, in particular theoretical physics.” [1:04] He argues that philosophers should quantify how  good an explanation is by using that explanation, [1:12] which gives the largest number of coherent  answers to the well-posed problems. He calls [1:17] this the maximally coherent theory. The best  theory is the one that explains the most cases, [1:23] makes sense of the most counterexamples, and  contradicts the least other accepted knowledge. [1:28] And AI can do it, so his argument, because  all it really comes down to is counting the [1:34] questions answered and contradictions. He  has even done an “experiment” in which he [1:39] used AI to allegedly solve a thorny problem of  philosophy, that is how to define causality. [1:46] The experiment works like this: ask ChatGPT  --- at the time that was GPT 4 --- which [1:54] notion of causality is the best. ChatGPT said  “counterfactual causality” which Vervoort thinks [2:00] is correct because it’s the one he also likes  best. Maybe doing philosophy like theoretical [2:05] physics is not the flex he thinks it is. Other philosophy topics that Vervoort thinks [2:11] AI will settle is free will, which  clearly doesn’t exist, and induction [2:17] which he thinks is a pseudoproblem. Though I  have to add that he also says that he does not [2:22] think AI will solve all philosophy problems,  in particular he says ‘big questions’ like the [2:29] meaning of life or the existence of god  are still up for grabs, presumably until [2:33] ChatGPT 7.8 max pro ultra agrees with him. The author published a paper with his main [2:40] argument before the book, so we already have  a comment from a philosopher titled “Can we [2:46] automate philosophy through AI? And should we  want to?” The philosopher basically says that [2:52] if you think philosophy is about generating  theories and arguing for and against them, [2:57] then, yes, an AI can in principle do it. If  you, on the other hand, think philosophy is [3:03] about thinking through these problems yourself  then an AI cannot do it for you. The remarkable [3:10] thing about this argument is that he managed  to blow it up to 15 pages which is basically [3:14] my problem with all philosophy literature,  loads of words to say the pathetically obvious. [3:20] That said, I don’t have much sympathy for  the physicists’ argument in this case either. [3:26] Because the question of how to quantify the “best”  explanation for a philosophical theory is itself [3:32] a philosophical problem. And the entire idea that  you can “sciencify” philosophy is nonsense because [3:39] philosophy is exactly what we use to discuss  the questions that science can NOT answer, [3:45] or not yet. There are of course questions that  eventually move from philosophy to science, [3:51] consciousness is just doing this and  free will is likely going to come next. [3:56] The problem with the author's argument  is nicely illustrated in his take on the [4:00] problem of induction. That’s the question  of why induction works, why do the laws [4:06] of nature continue to work, why does the sun  rise every morning, why do atoms remain stable, [4:13] why does sabine keep making stupid jokes. You  might say, well, it’s because we have seen in [4:18] the past that that’s the case. Yes, but that  would be proving induction by induction which [4:24] is a circular argument. Vervoort basically  says it’s a meaningless question because [4:29] induction should be treated as an axiom and  as such it doesn’t require a justification. [4:35] But induction is an axiom in science. We need  it for science to work. The question is why [4:42] does it work? That’s a question science can’t  answer which is exactly why it’s a question [4:46] for philosophers. If you say a non-scientific  question isn’t a question then yeah, I guess [4:51] you can close the philosophy departments, but even  Claude could tell that this is a pseudo-argument. [4:57] That said, I think both of these  gentlemen miss the obvious point, [5:02] which is that humans are by default lazy. Most  philosophy papers are already collections of [5:08] useless words that no one reads, and of  course increasingly more philosophers [5:13] will let AI do this job. Indeed I am sure  this is already happening. And I hope that [5:18] this will ultimately encourage philosophers  to improve the quality of their discourse. [5:23] I give the book a 6 out of 10 on the bullshit  meter. Why is it so low after all I’ve said? [5:30] It’s because I think that the method that the  author suggests, to quantify how “good” different [5:36] explanations are, is worthwhile. I just don’t  think it’s going to make philosophy redundant. [5:42] And if AI really does make philosophy obsolete,  philosophers will spend the next fifty years [5:48] debating whether that actually happened. If you have a trip coming up, I have a [5:52] recommendation for how you can make  this so much more convenient with the [5:57] electronic SIM card or eSIM from Saily.  What's it good for? If you're traveling, [6:04] you can avoid roaming fees just by switching to  a local eSIM. That can save you a ton of money. [6:11] Something else that I found it useful for is to  keep using an old phone which no longer has a [6:16] SIM card. You can also use it to set a virtual  location. How does it work? It's super easy. [6:24] Download the app, select a country under plan,  and don't forget to enter my code SABINE before [6:30] checkout because that'll get you 15% off. Download  the eSIM and switch it on. And that's it. Yes, [6:38] it's really that simple. Saily has 24/7 support  and if the eSIM doesn't work on your phone, [6:44] a money back guarantee. So use my code  SABINE for an exclusive 15% discount [6:50] on sale data plans and I wish you a good  trip. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow.