1
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Every day we face issues like climate change

2
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or the safety of vaccines

3
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
where we have to answer questions whose answers

4
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
rely heavily on scientific information.

5
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists tell us that the world is warming.

6
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists tell us that vaccines are safe.

7
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But how do we know if they are right?

8
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Why should be believe the science?

9
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The fact is, many of us actually don't believe the science.

10
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Public opinion polls consistently show

11
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that significant proportions of the American people

12
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
don't believe the climate is warming due to human activities,

13
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
don't think that there is evolution by natural selection,

14
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and aren't persuaded by the safety of vaccines.

15
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So why should we believe the science?

16
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, scientists don't like talking about 
science as a matter of belief.

17
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
In fact, they would contract science with faith

18
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they would say belief is the domain, faith.

19
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And faith is a separate thing apart and distinct from science.

20
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Indeed they would say religion is based on faith

21
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or maybe the calculous of Pascal's wager.

22
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Blaise Pascal was a 17th century mathematician

23
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
who tried to bring scientific reasoning to the question of

24
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
wether or not he should believe in God

25
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and his wager went like this:

26
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, if God doesn't exist but I decide to believe in him

27
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
nothing much is really lost.

28
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Maybe a few hours on Sunday.

29
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
[Laughter]

30
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But if he does exist and I don't believe in him,

31
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
then I'm in deep trouble.

32
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so Pascal said, we'd better believe in God.

33
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Or as one of my college professors said,

34
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"he clutched for the handmill of faith".

35
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
He made that leap of faith

36
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
leaving science and rationalism behind.

37
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now the fact is though, for most of us

38
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
most scientific claims are a leap of faith.

39
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We can't really judge scientific claims for ourselves in most cases.

40
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And indeed this is actually true for most scientists as well

41
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
outside of their own specialties.

42
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So if you think about it, a geologist can't tell you

43
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
wether a vaccine is safe.

44
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Most chemists are not experts in evolutionary theory.

45
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
A physicist cannot tell you, despite the claims of some of them,

46
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
wether or not tobacco causes cancer.

47
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, if even scientists themselves have to make a leap of faith

48
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
outside their own fields,

49
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
then why do they accept the claims of other scientists?

50
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Why do they believe each other's claims?

51
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And should we believe those claims?

52
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So what I'd like to argue is yes, we should.

53
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But not for the reason that most of us think.

54
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Most of us were taught in school that the reason we should

55
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
believe in science is because of the scientific method.

56
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We were taught that scientists follow a method

57
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and that this method guarantees the truth of their claims.

58
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The method that most of us were taught in school,

59
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we can call it the text book method,

60
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is the hypo-deductive method.

61
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
According to the standard model, the textbook model,

62
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
scientists develop hypotheses, they deduce the

63
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
consequences for those hypotheses,

64
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and then they go out into the world and they say:

65
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Are those consequences true?

66
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Can we observe them taking place in the natural world?

67
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And if they are true, then the scientists say:

68
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Great, we know the hypothesis is correct.

69
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So there are many famous examples in the history

70
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of science of scientists doing exactly this.

71
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
One of the most famous examples

72
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
comes from the work of Albert Einstein.

73
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
When Einstein developed the theory of general relativity

74
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
one of the consequences of his theory

75
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
was that space time wasn't just an empty void

76
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but that it actually had a fabric.

77
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And that that fabric was bent

78
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in the presence of massive objects like the sun.

79
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So if this theory were true then it meant that light

80
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as it passed the sun

81
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
should actually be bent around it.

82
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That was a pretty startling prediction

83
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and it took a few years before scientists

84
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
were able to test it.

85
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But they did test it in 1919

86
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and low and behold it turned out to be true.

87
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Starlight actually does bend as it travels around the sun.

88
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
This was a huge confirmation of the theory.

89
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It was considered proof of the truth of this radical new idea

90
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and it was written up in many newspapers around the globe.

91
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now sometimes this theory or this model

92
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is referred to as the deductive-nomological model.

93
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Meaning those academics like to make things complicated. 
[Laughter]

94
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But also because in the ideal case it's about laws.

95
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So nomological means having to do with laws.

96
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And in the ideal case, the hypothesis isn't just an idea,

97
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
ideally it is a law of nature.

98
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Why does it matter that it is a law of nature?

99
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Because if it is a law, it can't be broken.

100
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
If it's a law then it will always be true

101
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in all times and all places

102
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
no matter what the circumstances are.

103
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And all of you know at least one example of a famous law.

104
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2,

105
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
which tells us what the relationship is

106
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
between energy and mass.

107
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And that relationship is true no matter what.

108
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It turns out though that there are 
several problems with this model.

109
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The main problem is that it's wrong.

110
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's just not true. [Laughter]

111
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And I'm going to talk about three reasons why it's wrong.

112
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So the first reason is a logical reason,

113
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
it's the problem of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

114
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So that's another fancy academic way of saying

115
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that false theories can make true predictions.

116
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So just because the prediction comes true

117
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
doesn't actually logically prove that the theory is correct.

118
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And I have a good example of that too, 
again from the history of science.

119
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
This is a picture of the Ptolemaic universe

120
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
with the Earth at the center of the universe

121
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and The Sun and the planets going around it.

122
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The Ptolemaic model was believed

123
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
by many very smart people for many centuries.

124
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well why?

125
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well the answer is because it made 
lots of predictions that came true.

126
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The Ptolemaic system enabled astronomers

127
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to make accurate predictions of the motions of the planet.

128
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
In fact more accurate predictions at first

129
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
than the Copernican theory which we now would say is true.

130
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So that's one problem with the textbook model,

131
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
a second problem is a practical problem

132
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and it's the problem of auxiliary hypotheses.

133
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Auxiliary hypotheses are assumptions

134
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that scientists are making,

135
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that they may or may not even be aware that they're making.

136
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So an important example of this comes from

137
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
comes from the Copernican model

138
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
which ultimately replaced the Ptolemaic system.

139
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So when Nicolaus Copernicus said,

140
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
actually the Earth is not the center of the universe,

141
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the sun is the center of the solar system,

142
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the Earth moves around the sun.

143
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists said, well okay, Nicolaus, if that's true

144
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we ought to be able to detect the motion

145
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of the Earth around the sun.

146
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so this slide here illustrates a concept

147
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
known as stellar parallax.

148
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And astronomers said, if the Earth is moving

149
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and we look at a prominent star, let's say, Sirius.

150
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well I know I'm in Manhattan so you guys can't see the stars,

151
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but imagine you're out in the country, 
imagine you chose that rural life.

152
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And we look at a star in December, we see that star

153
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
against the backdrop of distant stars.

154
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
If we now make the same observation six months later

155
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
when the Earth has moved to this position in June,

156
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we look at that same star and we see it against a different backdrop.

157
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That difference, that angular difference, is the stellar parallax.

158
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So this is the prediction that the Copernican model makes,

159
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
astronomers looked for the stellar parallax

160
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they found nothing, nothing at all.

161
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And many people argued that this proved 
that the Copernican model was false.

162
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So what happened?

163
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well in hindsight we can say that astronomers were making

164
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
two auxiliary hypotheses, both of which

165
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we would now say were incorrect.

166
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The first was an assumption about the size of the Earth's orbit.

167
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Astronomers were assuming that the Earth's orbit was large

168
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
relative to the stars.

169
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Today we would draw the picture more like this,

170
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this comes from NASA,

171
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and you see the Earth's orbit is actually quite small.

172
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
In fact, it's actually much smaller even than shown here.

173
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The stellar parallax therefore,

174
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is very small and actually very hard to detect.

175
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And that leads to the second reason

176
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
why the prediction didn't work,

177
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because scientists were also assuming

178
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that the telescopes they had were sensitive enough

179
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to detect the parallax.

180
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And that turned out not to be true.

181
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It wasn't until the 19th century that scientists were able to detect

182
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the stellar parallax.

183
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, there's a third problem as well.

184
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The third problem is simply a factual problem

185
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that a lot of science doesn't fit the textbook model.

186
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
A lot of science isn't deductive at all, it's actually inductive.

187
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And by that we mean that scientists don't necessarily

188
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
start with theories and hypotheses, often they just

189
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
start with observations of stuff going on in the world.

190
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And the most famous example of that is one of the most

191
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
famous scientists who ever lived, Charles Darwin.

192
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
When Darwin went out as a young 
man on the voyage of the Beagle,

193
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
he didn't have a hypothesis, he didn't have a theory.

194
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
He just knew that he wanted to have a career as a scientist

195
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and he started to collect data.

196
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Mainly he knew that he hated medicine

197
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because the sight of blood made him sick so

198
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
he had to have an alternative career path.

199
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So he started collecting data.

200
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And he collected many things including his famous finches.

201
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
When he collected these finches he through them in a bag

202
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and he had no idea what they meant.

203
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Many years later back in London,

204
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Darwin looked at his data again and began to develop

205
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
an explanation

206
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and that explanation was the theory of natural selection.

207
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Besides inductive science,

208
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
scientists also often participate in modeling.

209
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
One of the things scientists want to do in life

210
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is to explain the causes of things.

211
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And how do we do that?

212
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, one way you can do it is to build a model

213
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that tests an idea.

214
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So this is a picture of Henry Cadell,

215
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
who was a Scottish geologist in the 19th century.

216
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
You can tell he's Scottish because he's wearing

217
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
a deerstalker cap and Wellington boots.

218
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Laughter)

219
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And Cadell wanted to answer the question,

220
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
how are mountains formed?

221
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And one of the things he had observed

222
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is that if you look at mountains
like the Appalachians,

223
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
you often find that the rocks in them

224
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
are folded,

225
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they're folded in a particular way,

226
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
which suggested to him

227
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that they were actually being
compressed from the side.

228
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And this idea would later play a major role

229
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in discussions of continental drift.

230
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So he built this model, this crazy contraption

231
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
with levers and wood and here's his wheelbarrow,

232
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
buckets, a big sledgehammer.

233
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I don't know why he's got the Wellington boots.

234
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Maybe it's going to rain.

235
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And he created this physical model in order

236
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to demonstrate that you could in fact create

237
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
patterns in rocks, or at least in this case in mud,

238
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that looked a lot like mountains

239
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if you compressed them from the side.

240
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So it was an argument about
the cause of mountains.

241
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Nowadays, most scientists prefer to work inside,

242
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
so they don't build physical models so much

243
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as to make computer simulations.

244
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But a computer simulation is a kind of a model.

245
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's a model that's made with mathematics,

246
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and like the physical models of the 19th century,

247
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
it's very important for thinking about causes.

248
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So one of the big questions
to do with climate change,

249
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we have tremendous amounts of evidence

250
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that the earth is warming up.

251
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
This slide here, the black line shows

252
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the measurements that scientists have taken

253
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
for the last 150 years

254
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
showing that the earth's temperature

255
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
has steadily increased,

256
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and you can see in particular
that in the last 50 years

257
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
there's been this dramatic increase

258
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of nearly one degree Centigrade,

259
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or almost two degrees Fahrenheit.

260
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So what, though, is driving that change?

261
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
How can we know what's causing

262
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the observed warming?

263
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, scientists can model it

264
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
using a computer simulation.

265
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So this diagram illustrates a computer simulation

266
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that has looked at all the different factors

267
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that we know can influence the earth's climate,

268
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
so sulfate particles from air pollution,

269
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
volcanic dust from volcanic eruptions,

270
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
changes in solar radiation,

271
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and, of course, greenhouse gases.

272
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And they asked the question,

273
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what set of variables put into a model

274
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
will reproduce what we actually see in real life?

275
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So here is the real life in black.

276
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Here's the model in this light grey,

277
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the answer is

278
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
a model that includes, it's the answer E on that SAT,

279
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
all of the above.

280
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The only way you can reproduce

281
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the observed temperature measurements

282
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is with all of these things put together,

283
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
including greenhouse gases,

284
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and in particular you can see that the increase

285
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in greenhouse gases tracks

286
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this very dramatic increase in temperature

287
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
over the last 50 years.

288
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so this is why climate scientists say

289
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
it's not just that we know that
climate change is happening,

290
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we know that greenhouse gases are a major part

291
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of the reason why.

292
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So now because there all these different things

293
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that scientists do,

294
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the philosopher Paul Feyerabend famously said,

295
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"The only principle in science

296
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that doesn't inhibit progress is: anything goes."

297
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now this quotation has often
been taken out of context,

298
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because Feyerabend was not actually saying

299
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that in science anything goes.

300
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
What he was saying was,

301
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
actually the full quotation is,

302
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"If you press me to say

303
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what is the method of science,

304
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I would have to say: anything goes."

305
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
What he was trying to say

306
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is that scientists do a lot of different things.

307
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists are creative.

308
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But then this pushes the question back:

309
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if scientists don't use a single method,

310
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
then how do they decide

311
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what's right and what's wrong?

312
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And who judges?

313
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And the answer is, scientists judge,

314
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they judge by judging evidence.

315
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists collect evidence in many different ways,

316
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but however they collect it,

317
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
they have to subject it to scrutiny.

318
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And this led to sociologist Robert Merton

319
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to focus on this question of how scientists

320
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
scrutinize data and evidence,

321
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and he said they do it in a way he called

322
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"organized skepticism."

323
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And by that he meant it's organized

324
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because they do it collectively,

325
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
they do it as a group,

326
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and skepticism, because they do it from a position

327
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of distrust.

328
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That is to say, the burden of proof

329
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is on the person with a novel claim.

330
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And in this sense, science
is intrinsically conservative.

331
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's quite hard to persuade the scientific community

332
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to say, "Yes, we know something, this is true."

333
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So despite the popularity of the concept

334
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of paradigm shifts,

335
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what we find is that actually,

336
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
really major changes in scientific thinking

337
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
are relatively rare in the history of science.

338
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So finally that brings us to one more idea:

339
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if scientists judge evidence collectively,

340
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this has led historians to focus on the question

341
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of consensus,

342
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and to say that at the end of the day,

343
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what science is,

344
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what scientific knowledge is,

345
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is the consensus of the scientific experts

346
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
who through this process of organized scrutiny,

347
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
collective scrutiny,

348
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
have judged the evidence

349
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and come to a conclusion about it,

350
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
either yea or nay.

351
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So we can think of scientific knowledge

352
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as a consensus of experts.

353
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We can also think of science as being

354
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
a kind of a jury,

355
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
except it's a very special kind of jury.

356
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's not a jury of your peers,

357
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
it's a jury of geeks.

358
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's a jury of men and women with Ph.D's,

359
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and unlike a conventional jury,

360
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
which has only two choices,

361
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
guilty or not guilty,

362
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the scientific jury actually has a number of choices.

363
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists can say yes, something's true.

364
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists can say no, it's false.

365
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Or, they can say, well it might be true

366
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but we need to work more
and collect more evidence.

367
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Or, they can say it might be true,

368
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but we don't know how to answer the question

369
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and we're going to put it aside

370
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and maybe come back to it later.

371
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That's what scientists call "intractable."

372
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But this leads us to one final problem:

373
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if science is what scientists say it is,

374
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
then isn't that just an appeal to authority?

375
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And weren't we all taught in school

376
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy?

377
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, here's the paradox of modern science,

378
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the paradox of the conclusions I think historians

379
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and philosophers and sociologists have come to,

380
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that actually science is the appeal to authority,

381
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but it's not the authority of the individual,

382
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
no matter how smart that individual is,

383
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
like Plato or Socrates or Einstein.

384
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's the authority of the collective community.

385
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
You can think of it is a kind of wisdom of the crowd,

386
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but a very special kind of crowd.

387
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Science does appeal to authority,

388
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but it's not based on any individual,

389
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
no matter how smart that individual may be.

390
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's based on the collective wisdom,

391
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the collective knowledge, the collective work,

392
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of all of the scientists who have worked

393
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
on a particular problem.

394
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists have a kind of culture of collective distrust,

395
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this "show me" culture,

396
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
illustrated by this nice woman here

397
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
showing her colleagues her evidence.

398
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Of course, these people don't
really look like scientists,

399
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because they're much too happy.

400
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Laughter)

401
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Okay, so that brings me to my final point.

402
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Most of us get up in the morning.

403
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Most of us trust our cars.

404
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, see, now I think, I'm in Manhattan,

405
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this is a bad analogy,

406
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but most Americans who don't live in Manhattan

407
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
get up in the morning and get in their cars

408
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and turn on that ignition, and their cars work,

409
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they work incredibly well.

410
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The modern automobile hardly ever breaks down.

411
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So why is that? Why do cars work so well?

412
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's not because of the genius of Henry Ford

413
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or Carl Benz or even Elon Musk.

414
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's because the modern automobile

415
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is the product of more than 100 years of work

416
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
by hundreds and thousands

417
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and tens of thousands of people.

418
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The modern automobile is the product

419
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of the collected work and wisdom and experience

420
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of every man and woman who has ever worked

421
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
on a car,

422
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the reliability of the technology is the result

423
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of that accumulated effort.

424
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We benefit not just from the benefit of Benz

425
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and Ford and Musk

426
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but from the collective intelligence and hard work

427
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of all of the people who have worked

428
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
on the modern car.

429
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And the same is true of science,

430
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
only science is even older.

431
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Our basis for trust in science is actually the same

432
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as our basis in trust in technology,

433
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the same as our basis for trust in anything,

434
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
namely, experience.

435
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But it shouldn't be blind trust

436
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
anymore than we would have blind trust in anything.

437
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Our trust in science, like science itself,

438
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
should be based on evidence,

439
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and that means that scientists

440
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
have to become better communicators.

441
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
They have to explain to us not just what they know

442
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but how they know it,

443
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and it means that we have
to become better listeners.

444
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Thank you very much.

445
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Applause)