In this video, the cognitive scientist Laurie Santos (Yale University) explains the phenomenon of anchoring. She shows how arbitrary information sometimes can sometimes act as an anchor that affects our judgments in unexpected ways.
In this video, the psychologist Laurie Santos (Yale University) explains the philosopher Tamar Gendler (Yale University)'s concept of alief — an automatic or habitual mental attitude. The video discusses why aliefs differ from beliefs and how aliefs can affect our important decisions more than we expect.
Chris Surprenant (University of New Orleans) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Immanuel Kant in the his moral, political, and religious writings. He explains why Kant believes that the highest good for a human being is the conjunction of happiness and complete virtue and how it is possible for an individual to attain these two things at the same time.
Chris Surprenant (UNO) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics. He explains why Aristotle believes that a human being lives well when he acts rightly and possesses all virtues, both intellectual and those relating to good character.
Chris Surprenant (UNO) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Socrates in Plato's dialogues. He explains why Socrates closely connects his account of the good life with justice, a concept understood not just as a political arrangement but also as a state of a well-ordered individual's soul.
In this video, Dr Eugen Fischer (UEA) presents the ‘argument from illusion’. This argument appears to refute our common-sense conception of perception (seeing, hearing, etc.). Together with parallel arguments, it raises the problem of perception that has been a lynch-pin of Western philosophy, since the mid-18th century.
In this video, Eduardo Mendieta (Penn State University) asks "What are the consequences of race thinking and the institutional and legal forms of segregation if race is not real? Why do we categorize race as a real thing based on visual perception and how is such a category anti-democratic?"
In this video, Professor Jonathan Anomaly (Duke and UNC – Chapel Hill) discusses collective action problems, which include any situation in which there is a conflict between individual rationality and social welfare, so that individuals working in isolation produce a worse outcome than they might if they could find a way to coordinate.
In this video, Professor Jonathan Anomaly (Duke and UNC – Chapel Hill) discusses commons tragedies, which are defined as a situation in which the benefits of an action are borne by the individual while the costs are shared by all members of a group.
In this video, Dr. Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (UNC-Chapel Hill) explains the prisoner's dilemma. The prisoner's dilemma is a scenario where all parties making rational choices ensures a less desired result for each than if each actor had chosen individually less-preferred options.
Victor Kumar (Michigan) introduces the problem of moral luck and surveys potential solutions. We see how the problem arises out of a clash between intuitive reactions to cases and an abstract principle of moral responsibility.
Using the method of experimental philosophy, Nina Strohminger (Yale University) and Shaun Nichols (University of Arizona) compare philosophical and everyday answers to the question "Which aspect of the self is most essential for personal identity?"
In this video, Elmar Kremer (University of Toronto) introduces two theories of the nature of God: classical theism and theistic personalism. In part 2, he considers several arguments for and against classical theism.
In this video, Elmar Kremer (University of Toronto) introduces two theories of the nature of God: classical theism and theistic personalism. In part 1, he considers the arguments that have been made for each theory.
In this video, Geoff Pynn (Northern Illinois University) follows up on his introduction to critical thinking by exploring how abductive arguments give us reason to believe their conclusions. Good abductive arguments don't guarantee their conclusions, but give us very good reasons to believe their conclusions. This sort of inference is called "inference to the best explanation."
The Monty Hall problem is a strange result arising from a very simple situation. In this video, Bryce Gessell (Duke University) explains why it seems so counterintuitive and why the solution isn't counterintuitive at all.