1
00:00:01,083 --> 00:00:04,268
Every day we face issues like climate change

2
00:00:04,268 --> 00:00:05,708
or the safety of vaccines

3
00:00:05,708 --> 00:00:08,348
where we have to answer questions whose answers

4
00:00:08,348 --> 00:00:11,659
rely heavily on scientific information.

5
00:00:11,659 --> 00:00:15,033
Scientists tell us that the world is warming.

6
00:00:15,033 --> 00:00:17,281
Scientists tell us that vaccines are safe.

7
00:00:17,281 --> 00:00:19,465
But how do we know if they are right?

8
00:00:19,465 --> 00:00:21,569
Why should be believe the science?

9
00:00:21,569 --> 00:00:24,898
The fact is, many of us actually
don't believe the science.

10
00:00:24,898 --> 00:00:27,314
Public opinion polls consistently show

11
00:00:27,314 --> 00:00:29,634
that significant proportions of the American people

12
00:00:29,634 --> 00:00:33,225
don't believe the climate is
warming due to human activities,

13
00:00:33,225 --> 00:00:36,724
don't think that there is
evolution by natural selection,

14
00:00:36,724 --> 00:00:40,805
and aren't persuaded by the safety of vaccines.

15
00:00:40,805 --> 00:00:44,316
So why should we believe the science?

16
00:00:44,316 --> 00:00:47,957
Well, scientists don't like talking about 
science as a matter of belief.

17
00:00:47,957 --> 00:00:50,444
In fact, they would contract science with faith,

18
00:00:50,444 --> 00:00:53,068
and they would say belief is the domain of faith.

19
00:00:53,068 --> 00:00:57,238
And faith is a separate thing
apart and distinct from science.

20
00:00:57,238 --> 00:00:59,790
Indeed they would say religion is based on faith

21
00:00:59,790 --> 00:01:04,254
or maybe the calculous of Pascal's wager.

22
00:01:04,254 --> 00:01:07,110
Blaise Pascal was a 17th century mathematician

23
00:01:07,110 --> 00:01:09,630
who tried to bring scientific reasoning to the question of

24
00:01:09,630 --> 00:01:11,542
whether or not he should believe in God,

25
00:01:11,542 --> 00:01:13,616
and his wager went like this:

26
00:01:13,616 --> 00:01:15,935
well, if God doesn't exist

27
00:01:15,935 --> 00:01:18,595
but I decide to believe in him

28
00:01:18,595 --> 00:01:20,538
nothing much is really lost.

29
00:01:20,538 --> 00:01:22,451
Maybe a few hours on Sunday.

30
00:01:22,451 --> 99:59:59,999
[Laughter]

31
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But if he does exist and I don't believe in him,

32
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
then I'm in deep trouble.

33
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so Pascal said, we'd better believe in God.

34
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Or as one of my college professors said,

35
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"he clutched for the handmill of faith".

36
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
He made that leap of faith

37
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
leaving science and rationalism behind.

38
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now the fact is though, for most of us

39
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
most scientific claims are a leap of faith.

40
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We can't really judge scientific claims for ourselves in most cases.

41
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And indeed this is actually true for most scientists as well

42
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
outside of their own specialties.

43
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So if you think about it, a geologist can't tell you

44
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
wether a vaccine is safe.

45
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Most chemists are not experts in evolutionary theory.

46
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
A physicist cannot tell you, despite the claims of some of them,

47
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
wether or not tobacco causes cancer.

48
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, if even scientists themselves have to make a leap of faith

49
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
outside their own fields,

50
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
then why do they accept the claims of other scientists?

51
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Why do they believe each other's claims?

52
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And should we believe those claims?

53
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So what I'd like to argue is yes, we should.

54
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But not for the reason that most of us think.

55
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Most of us were taught in school that the reason we should

56
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
believe in science is because of the scientific method.

57
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We were taught that scientists follow a method

58
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and that this method guarantees the truth of their claims.

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

60
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we can call it the text book method,

61
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is the hypo-deductive method.

62
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
According to the standard model, the textbook model,

63
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
scientists develop hypotheses, they deduce the

64
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
consequences for those hypotheses,

65
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and then they go out into the world and they say:

66
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Are those consequences true?

67
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Can we observe them taking place in the natural world?

68
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And if they are true, then the scientists say:

69
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Great, we know the hypothesis is correct.

70
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So there are many famous examples in the history

71
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of science of scientists doing exactly this.

72
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
One of the most famous examples

73
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
comes from the work of Albert Einstein.

74
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
When Einstein developed the theory of general relativity

75
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
one of the consequences of his theory

76
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
was that space time wasn't just an empty void

77
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but that it actually had a fabric.

78
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And that that fabric was bent

79
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in the presence of massive objects like the sun.

80
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So if this theory were true then it meant that light

81
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as it passed the sun

82
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
should actually be bent around it.

83
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That was a pretty startling prediction

84
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and it took a few years before scientists

85
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
were able to test it.

86
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But they did test it in 1919

87
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and low and behold it turned out to be true.

88
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Starlight actually does bend as it travels around the sun.

89
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
This was a huge confirmation of the theory.

90
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It was considered proof of the truth of this radical new idea

91
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and it was written up in many newspapers around the globe.

92
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now sometimes this theory or this model

93
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is referred to as the deductive-nomological model.

94
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Meaning those academics like to make things complicated. 
[Laughter]

95
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But also because in the ideal case it's about laws.

96
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So nomological means having to do with laws.

97
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And in the ideal case, the hypothesis isn't just an idea,

98
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
ideally it is a law of nature.

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

100
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Because if it is a law, it can't be broken.

101
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
If it's a law then it will always be true

102
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in all times and all places

103
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
no matter what the circumstances are.

104
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And all of you know at least one example of a famous law.

105
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2,

106
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
which tells us what the relationship is

107
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
between energy and mass.

108
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And that relationship is true no matter what.

109
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It turns out though that there are 
several problems with this model.

110
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The main problem is that it's wrong.

111
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's just not true. [Laughter]

112
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And I'm going to talk about three reasons why it's wrong.

113
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So the first reason is a logical reason,

114
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
it's the problem of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

115
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So that's another fancy academic way of saying

116
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that false theories can make true predictions.

117
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So just because the prediction comes true

118
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
doesn't actually logically prove that the theory is correct.

119
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And I have a good example of that too, 
again from the history of science.

120
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
This is a picture of the Ptolemaic universe

121
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
with the Earth at the center of the universe

122
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and The Sun and the planets going around it.

123
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The Ptolemaic model was believed

124
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
by many very smart people for many centuries.

125
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well why?

126
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well the answer is because it made 
lots of predictions that came true.

127
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The Ptolemaic system enabled astronomers

128
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to make accurate predictions of the motions of the planet.

129
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
In fact more accurate predictions at first

130
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
than the Copernican theory which we now would say is true.

131
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So that's one problem with the textbook model,

132
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
a second problem is a practical problem

133
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and it's the problem of auxiliary hypotheses.

134
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Auxiliary hypotheses are assumptions

135
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that scientists are making,

136
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that they may or may not even be aware that they're making.

137
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So an important example of this comes from

138
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
comes from the Copernican model

139
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
which ultimately replaced the Ptolemaic system.

140
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So when Nicolaus Copernicus said,

141
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
actually the Earth is not the center of the universe,

142
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the sun is the center of the solar system,

143
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the Earth moves around the sun.

144
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists said, well okay, Nicolaus, if that's true

145
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we ought to be able to detect the motion

146
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of the Earth around the sun.

147
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so this slide here illustrates a concept

148
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
known as stellar parallax.

149
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And astronomers said, if the Earth is moving

150
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and we look at a prominent star, let's say, Sirius.

151
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well I know I'm in Manhattan so you guys can't see the stars,

152
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but imagine you're out in the country, 
imagine you chose that rural life.

153
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And we look at a star in December, we see that star

154
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
against the backdrop of distant stars.

155
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
If we now make the same observation six months later

156
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
when the Earth has moved to this position in June,

157
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we look at that same star and we see it against a different backdrop.

158
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That difference, that angular difference, is the stellar parallax.

159
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So this is the prediction that the Copernican model makes,

160
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
astronomers looked for the stellar parallax

161
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they found nothing, nothing at all.

162
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And many people argued that this proved 
that the Copernican model was false.

163
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So what happened?

164
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well in hindsight we can say that astronomers were making

165
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
two auxiliary hypotheses, both of which

166
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we would now say were incorrect.

167
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The first was an assumption about the size of the Earth's orbit.

168
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Astronomers were assuming that the Earth's orbit was large

169
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
relative to the stars.

170
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Today we would draw the picture more like this,

171
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this comes from NASA,

172
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and you see the Earth's orbit is actually quite small.

173
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
In fact, it's actually much smaller even than shown here.

174
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The stellar parallax therefore,

175
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is very small and actually very hard to detect.

176
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And that leads to the second reason

177
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
why the prediction didn't work,

178
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because scientists were also assuming

179
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that the telescopes they had were sensitive enough

180
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to detect the parallax.

181
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And that turned out not to be true.

182
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It wasn't until the 19th century that scientists were able to detect

183
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the stellar parallax.

184
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So, there's a third problem as well.

185
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The third problem is simply a factual problem

186
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that a lot of science doesn't fit the textbook model.

187
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
A lot of science isn't deductive at all, it's actually inductive.

188
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And by that we mean that scientists don't necessarily

189
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
start with theories and hypotheses, often they just

190
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
start with observations of stuff going on in the world.

191
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And the most famous example of that is one of the most

192
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
famous scientists who ever lived, Charles Darwin.

193
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
When Darwin went out as a young 
man on the voyage of the Beagle,

194
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
he didn't have a hypothesis, he didn't have a theory.

195
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
He just knew that he wanted to have a career as a scientist

196
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and he started to collect data.

197
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Mainly he knew that he hated medicine

198
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because the sight of blood made him sick so

199
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
he had to have an alternative career path.

200
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So he started collecting data.

201
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And he collected many things including his famous finches.

202
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
When he collected these finches he through them in a bag

203
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and he had no idea what they meant.

204
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Many years later back in London,

205
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Darwin looked at his data again and began to develop

206
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
an explanation

207
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and that explanation was the theory of natural selection.

208
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Besides inductive science,

209
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
scientists also often participate in modeling.

210
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
One of the things scientists want to do in life

211
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is to explain the causes of things.

212
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And how do we do that?

213
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, one way you can do it is to build a model

214
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that tests an idea.

215
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So this is a picture of Henry Cadell,

216
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
who was a Scottish geologist in the 19th century.

217
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
You can tell he's Scottish because he's wearing

218
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
a deerstalker cap and Wellington boots.

219
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Laughter)

220
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And Cadell wanted to answer the question,

221
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
how are mountains formed?

222
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And one of the things he had observed

223
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is that if you look at mountains
like the Appalachians,

224
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
you often find that the rocks in them

225
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
are folded,

226
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they're folded in a particular way,

227
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
which suggested to him

228
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that they were actually being
compressed from the side.

229
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And this idea would later play a major role

230
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in discussions of continental drift.

231
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So he built this model, this crazy contraption

232
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
with levers and wood and here's his wheelbarrow,

233
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
buckets, a big sledgehammer.

234
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I don't know why he's got the Wellington boots.

235
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Maybe it's going to rain.

236
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And he created this physical model in order

237
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to demonstrate that you could in fact create

238
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
patterns in rocks, or at least in this case in mud,

239
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that looked a lot like mountains

240
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if you compressed them from the side.

241
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So it was an argument about
the cause of mountains.

242
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Nowadays, most scientists prefer to work inside,

243
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
so they don't build physical models so much

244
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as to make computer simulations.

245
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But a computer simulation is a kind of a model.

246
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's a model that's made with mathematics,

247
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and like the physical models of the 19th century,

248
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
it's very important for thinking about causes.

249
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So one of the big questions
to do with climate change,

250
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we have tremendous amounts of evidence

251
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that the earth is warming up.

252
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
This slide here, the black line shows

253
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the measurements that scientists have taken

254
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
for the last 150 years

255
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
showing that the earth's temperature

256
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
has steadily increased,

257
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and you can see in particular
that in the last 50 years

258
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
there's been this dramatic increase

259
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of nearly one degree Centigrade,

260
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or almost two degrees Fahrenheit.

261
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So what, though, is driving that change?

262
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
How can we know what's causing

263
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the observed warming?

264
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, scientists can model it

265
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
using a computer simulation.

266
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So this diagram illustrates a computer simulation

267
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that has looked at all the different factors

268
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that we know can influence the earth's climate,

269
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
so sulfate particles from air pollution,

270
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
volcanic dust from volcanic eruptions,

271
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
changes in solar radiation,

272
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and, of course, greenhouse gases.

273
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And they asked the question,

274
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what set of variables put into a model

275
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
will reproduce what we actually see in real life?

276
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So here is the real life in black.

277
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Here's the model in this light grey,

278
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the answer is

279
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
a model that includes, it's the answer E on that SAT,

280
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
all of the above.

281
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The only way you can reproduce

282
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the observed temperature measurements

283
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is with all of these things put together,

284
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
including greenhouse gases,

285
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and in particular you can see that the increase

286
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
in greenhouse gases tracks

287
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this very dramatic increase in temperature

288
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
over the last 50 years.

289
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And so this is why climate scientists say

290
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
it's not just that we know that
climate change is happening,

291
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
we know that greenhouse gases are a major part

292
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of the reason why.

293
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So now because there all these different things

294
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that scientists do,

295
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the philosopher Paul Feyerabend famously said,

296
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"The only principle in science

297
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that doesn't inhibit progress is: anything goes."

298
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Now this quotation has often
been taken out of context,

299
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because Feyerabend was not actually saying

300
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that in science anything goes.

301
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
What he was saying was,

302
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
actually the full quotation is,

303
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"If you press me to say

304
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what is the method of science,

305
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
I would have to say: anything goes."

306
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
What he was trying to say

307
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is that scientists do a lot of different things.

308
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists are creative.

309
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But then this pushes the question back:

310
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if scientists don't use a single method,

311
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
then how do they decide

312
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what's right and what's wrong?

313
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And who judges?

314
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And the answer is, scientists judge,

315
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they judge by judging evidence.

316
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists collect evidence in many different ways,

317
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but however they collect it,

318
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
they have to subject it to scrutiny.

319
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And this led to sociologist Robert Merton

320
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to focus on this question of how scientists

321
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
scrutinize data and evidence,

322
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and he said they do it in a way he called

323
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
"organized skepticism."

324
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And by that he meant it's organized

325
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because they do it collectively,

326
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
they do it as a group,

327
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and skepticism, because they do it from a position

328
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of distrust.

329
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That is to say, the burden of proof

330
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is on the person with a novel claim.

331
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And in this sense, science
is intrinsically conservative.

332
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's quite hard to persuade the scientific community

333
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
to say, "Yes, we know something, this is true."

334
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So despite the popularity of the concept

335
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of paradigm shifts,

336
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what we find is that actually,

337
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
really major changes in scientific thinking

338
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
are relatively rare in the history of science.

339
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So finally that brings us to one more idea:

340
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if scientists judge evidence collectively,

341
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this has led historians to focus on the question

342
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of consensus,

343
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and to say that at the end of the day,

344
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what science is,

345
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
what scientific knowledge is,

346
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is the consensus of the scientific experts

347
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
who through this process of organized scrutiny,

348
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
collective scrutiny,

349
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
have judged the evidence

350
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and come to a conclusion about it,

351
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
either yea or nay.

352
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So we can think of scientific knowledge

353
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as a consensus of experts.

354
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We can also think of science as being

355
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
a kind of a jury,

356
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
except it's a very special kind of jury.

357
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's not a jury of your peers,

358
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
it's a jury of geeks.

359
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's a jury of men and women with Ph.D's,

360
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and unlike a conventional jury,

361
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
which has only two choices,

362
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
guilty or not guilty,

363
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the scientific jury actually has a number of choices.

364
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists can say yes, something's true.

365
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists can say no, it's false.

366
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Or, they can say, well it might be true

367
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but we need to work more
and collect more evidence.

368
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Or, they can say it might be true,

369
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but we don't know how to answer the question

370
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and we're going to put it aside

371
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and maybe come back to it later.

372
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
That's what scientists call "intractable."

373
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But this leads us to one final problem:

374
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if science is what scientists say it is,

375
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
then isn't that just an appeal to authority?

376
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And weren't we all taught in school

377
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy?

378
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, here's the paradox of modern science,

379
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the paradox of the conclusions I think historians

380
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and philosophers and sociologists have come to,

381
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that actually science is the appeal to authority,

382
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but it's not the authority of the individual,

383
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
no matter how smart that individual is,

384
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
like Plato or Socrates or Einstein.

385
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's the authority of the collective community.

386
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
You can think of it is a kind of wisdom of the crowd,

387
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but a very special kind of crowd.

388
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Science does appeal to authority,

389
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but it's not based on any individual,

390
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
no matter how smart that individual may be.

391
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's based on the collective wisdom,

392
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the collective knowledge, the collective work,

393
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of all of the scientists who have worked

394
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
on a particular problem.

395
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Scientists have a kind of culture of collective distrust,

396
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this "show me" culture,

397
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
illustrated by this nice woman here

398
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
showing her colleagues her evidence.

399
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Of course, these people don't
really look like scientists,

400
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
because they're much too happy.

401
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Laughter)

402
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Okay, so that brings me to my final point.

403
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Most of us get up in the morning.

404
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Most of us trust our cars.

405
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Well, see, now I think, I'm in Manhattan,

406
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
this is a bad analogy,

407
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but most Americans who don't live in Manhattan

408
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
get up in the morning and get in their cars

409
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and turn on that ignition, and their cars work,

410
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and they work incredibly well.

411
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The modern automobile hardly ever breaks down.

412
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So why is that? Why do cars work so well?

413
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's not because of the genius of Henry Ford

414
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or Carl Benz or even Elon Musk.

415
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's because the modern automobile

416
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is the product of more than 100 years of work

417
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
by hundreds and thousands

418
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and tens of thousands of people.

419
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The modern automobile is the product

420
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of the collected work and wisdom and experience

421
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of every man and woman who has ever worked

422
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
on a car,

423
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the reliability of the technology is the result

424
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of that accumulated effort.

425
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
We benefit not just from the benefit of Benz

426
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and Ford and Musk

427
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but from the collective intelligence and hard work

428
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
of all of the people who have worked

429
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
on the modern car.

430
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And the same is true of science,

431
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
only science is even older.

432
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Our basis for trust in science is actually the same

433
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
as our basis in trust in technology,

434
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and the same as our basis for trust in anything,

435
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
namely, experience.

436
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
But it shouldn't be blind trust

437
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
anymore than we would have blind trust in anything.

438
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Our trust in science, like science itself,

439
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
should be based on evidence,

440
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and that means that scientists

441
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
have to become better communicators.

442
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
They have to explain to us not just what they know

443
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but how they know it,

444
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and it means that we have
to become better listeners.

445
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Thank you very much.

446
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
(Applause)