0:02

You should not, right? You are

0:05

no scientist. You are a foolish

0:07

person. Your

0:11

article could cause new cancer deaths.

0:16

Get. Beyond your pet that a

0:18

left wing ain't east over

0:20

the empire fascist lies. What

0:22

are your qualifications? I. Looked

0:24

up your by own was totally unimpressed.

0:29

You call yourself a science writer.

0:31

Your article was all lies. I

0:35

have no clue where you got your info

0:37

on vitamins. There is no doubt in my

0:39

mind they helped me in a multitude of

0:42

ways, bashing them for no good reason, Christie

0:45

ash want and should not be

0:47

allowed to write for any magazine.

0:50

Maybe she has no friends? Maybe that's

0:53

the real problem here. I'm.

0:59

Christy Ashooh undone and this

1:01

is uncertain from Scientific American.

1:10

Today. We've gotta show and

1:12

to axe exploring how studies can

1:14

make us so over confident that

1:16

we lose sight of the underlying

1:18

uncertainty. Act

1:20

One That backfire effect. Back.

1:24

And twenty eleven. I gave a short

1:26

talk at a journalism conference about what

1:28

ahead learn from hate mail. The bottom

1:30

line I said was that if you

1:32

tell people that they're wrong about something

1:34

they hold dear, they will immediately get

1:36

defensive. And if you're a journalist like

1:38

me, they will send you nasty letters

1:40

like the ones you heard at the

1:42

top of the show. I

1:45

based my argument or my

1:47

own personal experience, having written

1:49

about things like climate change,

1:51

cancer screening, and most controversially

1:53

the Useless. Of multi vitamins

1:55

but I also backed it up

1:57

with science specifically some research. by

2:00

Brendan Nihan, a political scientist

2:02

at Dartmouth College. Here's

2:05

how I explained it in the talk. Nihan

2:08

studied what happens when you tell people that

2:10

they're wrong, and what happens is

2:12

you go back and think about all the reasons

2:14

you were right in the first place, and

2:17

in the process of doing this, you become

2:19

more sure of yourself. This

2:21

became known as the backfire effect. Here's

2:26

Brendan Nihan. After

2:28

I graduated from college, I had worked as

2:31

one of the founders of a non-partisan fact-checking

2:34

website called Spinsanity that was one of

2:36

the original online fact checkers. We

2:38

ran from 2001 to 2004, and that ended up putting us in

2:44

the middle of the war in Iraq and how

2:46

that was presented, the aftermath of 9-11

2:48

and the conspiracy theories around that. Oh

2:51

yes, the 9-11 conspiracies, there are a

2:53

lot of those. Then you fast

2:55

forward to the end of the Bush administration Barack

2:58

Obama is running for president, the

3:00

Obama-Muslim myth starts spreading. That

3:03

becomes a very salient misperception.

3:06

The first two years of the Obama

3:08

administration, we have the Affordable Care Act,

3:10

so the death panel myth is a

3:12

hugely influential policy misperception, and

3:15

the Obama-Muslim myth morphs into the birther

3:17

myth. So people like you

3:19

are trying to correct these misperceptions and not

3:21

getting much traction. People are trying

3:23

to understand why are these so

3:25

prominent? Why are our efforts to fight these, not

3:28

working? Your studies used undergraduates

3:30

as test subjects. What was

3:32

the setup? Each of the

3:35

studies involved a mock news

3:37

article about a salient political

3:39

misperception. The experiment was whether that

3:41

mock news article randomly included corrective

3:43

information debunking the claim made

3:45

by the featured political elite

3:47

or not. What kinds of

3:50

misperceptions were you testing? So

3:52

for instance, there's an example in

3:54

the article is George W. Bush

3:56

suggesting that his tax cut will

3:58

reduce the deficit. rather than increase

4:00

it. This past week I have been making the

4:03

case for tax reductions. I've

4:05

asked Congress to act quickly on my tax relief

4:07

plan so that Americans can

4:09

face these uncertain economic times with more

4:11

of their own money. Which is

4:13

a finding that even his own

4:16

economists held that his claims were

4:18

not accurate. Ah, so one group

4:20

would be told that, well, actually the Bush

4:22

administration's own economists say the tax cut will

4:24

increase the deficit by many millions of dollars.

4:27

That was an experimental variation. Are

4:30

you being exposed to that corrective

4:32

information or not? And you found

4:34

that people exposed to the corrective information, what

4:37

we might now call a fact check,

4:39

actually ended up becoming more sure of

4:41

the misperceptions rather than correcting it. The

4:44

finding was that two of the five

4:46

studies we conducted showed evidence of this

4:48

backfire effect. Our interpretation when asked was

4:50

that people might be thinking about reasons

4:53

they held a belief in the first place and

4:55

coming to double down on them as a result

4:57

of being corrected. I loved

4:59

the backfire effect. It felt so

5:01

true and resonated so much with

5:03

my personal experience. I was

5:06

positive that this finding explained everything in the

5:08

same way that I was sure that

5:10

the dress from our previous episode was white

5:12

and gold. That finding turned out to

5:14

be a real brain worm for all

5:17

of us. It

5:23

resonated with people's experiences like

5:25

yours in reminding

5:27

people of the times when they struggled

5:29

to convince someone who seemed even more

5:32

sure of their original belief. As

5:34

a result, it just resonated. And

5:37

as we told and retold the story in the

5:39

way humans do, the scientific

5:41

nuance was lost. It felt so

5:44

true. Like it didn't need nuance. I

5:46

think you're an extremely careful scientific journalist. It's not

5:48

a criticism of you in any way. Well, thank

5:50

you. That is very kind. But it's like

5:53

as I tell the story and then you tell the

5:55

story and as it Propagates out there

5:57

into the world.. And Then of course,

5:59

we told the story. we lost control

6:01

of how it was described overtime and

6:03

it's just. Spread. Everywhere and

6:06

you know good at the time the most other

6:08

wasn't better. at the time there really wasn't better

6:10

evidence or this was the study I conduct an

6:12

airport or what I found and I try my

6:14

best interpretation of it. From. A scientific

6:17

perspective. Let's take a moment to step back

6:19

and take a closer look at what's happening here.

6:22

Friend. And the group got some really interesting

6:24

data. But. Those are just raw

6:26

results. The. Human brain doesn't think and

6:28

data. We think and. Stories.

6:31

So. He and his colleagues do at

6:33

all scientists do. They created a story

6:35

to explain their data. To

6:37

do that, they had to do some interpretation

6:39

and bring human judgment to bear. Let's

6:42

listen again to at Brendan said a moment

6:44

ago. Our interpretation when ass

6:46

was that. People. Might be thinking

6:49

about reasons they held belief in the first

6:51

place in coming to double down on them

6:53

as a result of being corrected. Noticed. That

6:55

she said people might be thinking about

6:57

reasons they held the police. Because.

7:00

He's a careful scientists bread and miss

7:02

classes here to say that this is

7:04

a possible explanation. But. It's really

7:06

just a guess and is pretty careful not

7:08

to overstate it. Whether or

7:10

not the result south holds up, this

7:13

explanation of it is a hypothesis. We.

7:15

Can think of it as a just so story. Richard

7:19

Kipling classic collection of just so

7:21

stories for little children provides fanciful

7:23

explanations for things like how leopards

7:26

at their spots and how camels

7:28

got their humps. Just. So

7:30

stories or tails invented to explain

7:32

observed phenomena just like the explanation

7:35

scientists present for their scientific results

7:37

are invented to explain the data,

7:40

And. So they're tested. These stories are

7:42

just best. guess is that because he's

7:44

explanations are created a perfectly fit the

7:46

data, it's easy to jump on the

7:49

story and forget all about the uncertainty

7:51

that surrounds it. As. It

7:53

turns out the back fire fact is a

7:55

classic case of a very exciting first finding

7:58

that we are some fun and then. Prove.

8:01

It disappears and later studies. Of

8:03

course, it's important to note that only

8:05

two of the five original experiments found

8:07

any evidence of the backfire effect, so

8:09

there was a lot of uncertainty about

8:11

it from the very first study. Since.

8:14

Then. Many other studies

8:17

have been done by myself and my

8:19

coauthors by many other scholars, Finding the

8:21

backfire effect seem to be exceptionally

8:23

rare. That I know the genie is

8:25

out of the bottle. This followed that is never

8:27

good as much media attention is the first time,

8:29

right? Those and forces don't get the

8:32

so seem kind of. Play.

8:35

I feel like this is a little bit not all

8:37

right. You're presented with evidence

8:39

that the original finding on the back

8:41

fire fact might not hold up, and

8:43

instead of doubling down, you actually opened

8:45

up and said wait a second. Let's

8:48

revisit this. Let's put all the evidence

8:50

together. You are and are you know?

8:52

I'm I'm grateful to all the. People.

8:54

Who interacted with me in a good faith

8:57

manner and I think that helps us all

8:59

be better people in in and having these

9:01

kinds of exchanges right? It never became personally,

9:03

never became. Vitriolic. And

9:06

that helped citing keep. The

9:08

focus on the science in a way that

9:10

help me of we he responded i'm in

9:12

a more in an appropriate way. It's.

9:14

Kind of the idealized version of has

9:17

Sciences Sit behaves. I can easily imagine

9:19

a different universe where you double down

9:21

and you may be give a Ted

9:23

talk and right a pop science book

9:25

about the power of the backfire fact.

9:28

Instead, you published a paper titled why

9:30

that backfire effect does not explain the

9:32

durability of political misperceptions. And it's

9:34

a great reminder that we don't have all

9:36

the answers. I think it's really change how

9:39

I think about science and how I do

9:41

science. Has it changed? the way you operate?

9:44

I hope it's a help me a process

9:46

question. With. More humility

9:48

because. I had many preregistered

9:50

studies at that point. Oh right

9:53

Femur Dysart studies are experiments where you

9:55

lay out and commit to specific plan

9:57

you can. it's how you a period.

10:00

The study and analyze the results before

10:02

you begin. This. Is meant

10:04

to reduce the temptation to fiddle around with

10:06

the analysis once the results start coming in.

10:09

So. What a few studies found. The.

10:11

Findings were clear that. Correct.

10:13

Information do tend to reduce

10:15

proceed accuracy of false claims

10:18

Someone. right? And I had

10:20

plenty of preregistered studies in which I had found

10:22

exactly that. So. Does the

10:24

backfire effect really exist? We.

10:26

Know I wasn't. Finding. Evidence

10:28

of. Pervasive. Are substantial

10:31

back firefox either. Since

10:33

that talk thirteen years ago at that. a lot

10:35

about the back side effect and what it says

10:37

about science and how we know what's trill. One.

10:40

Thing that's become clear to me is that it's really

10:43

easy to get a result. He. Did a

10:45

study and he found the saying. It's

10:47

a lot harder to get an answer to

10:49

the underlying question. When I

10:51

was getting that talk about the backfire fact,

10:53

I was trying to explain why people resist

10:55

changing their beliefs when they. Are offered a

10:58

correction. I really wanted a

11:00

universal answer. But. That's

11:02

asking for a lot. For. We expecting too

11:04

much for the backfire fact. Became.

11:07

To stand in for why the

11:09

social phenomena exists, rights and no

11:11

scientific research can bear the weight

11:14

of these. There's a demand for

11:16

model causal explanations for complex social

11:18

problems, right? And this one certainly

11:21

couldn't. We. Want a single

11:23

answer that explains everything? But maybe

11:25

there isn't one. Alex itself

11:27

that the most scientific answer to

11:29

any question is it depends. I.

11:32

Think as a learning opportunity for everyone's really no

11:34

warning A pretty for me. As a scientist, I've

11:36

done my very best in my own research to

11:38

follow up on the study to not let it

11:40

be the last word to. Publicize.

11:43

The emerging body of evidence that better

11:45

represents the scientific consensus as as time

11:47

has gone on and I think. Maybe.

11:50

Most importantly, I've tried to not be

11:52

defensive about my own study, because out.

11:55

In. A What Kind of a? Reservist.

11:57

Information would I be if I wasn't willing to change my mind

11:59

when the. Change. That's really noble

12:01

of you, but we're all human. It's easier

12:03

to sell the sense of how do you

12:05

live away from the desire to be right,

12:07

toward the goal of finding the right answer?

12:10

I've. Gone on to work on a number

12:12

of studies with or eat Importer and Tom

12:14

would have done some of the most important

12:17

follow up research. In. This area and

12:19

we work together collaboratively instead of having

12:21

one of these adversarial. Scientific.

12:23

Disputes work he side says the other

12:25

is wrong we've for to pass a

12:28

try to move that research literature in

12:30

it. More. Informative direction and

12:32

I'm I'm really excited about. What?

12:34

Lessons can. We take the Backfire saga.

12:37

The. Single splashy study ones itself

12:39

to media coverage. It's

12:41

what the big general interest science journals look

12:44

for. By. Sometimes.

12:46

Studies are surprising precisely because

12:49

they don't correspond said prior

12:51

knowledge. City. Be more skeptical

12:53

of really surprising findings. We should

12:55

be cautious that they may be anomalous rate

12:57

and our our study turned out to be

12:59

anomalous. I don't know of an air we

13:01

made, I of course it's science. It's not

13:04

our fight or findings. A provisional and subject

13:06

to being overturned. This Harkins to

13:08

the hidden moderators we talked about in

13:10

our previous episode, does unremarkable decisions that

13:12

researchers make that may end up having

13:15

a big influence on the results they

13:17

get. Has. This experience change

13:19

the way you approach study design. There

13:22

are a number of factors that I would you very

13:24

differently now. With. You know the knowledge

13:27

of. Be a more

13:29

than fifteen years and switch back to

13:31

those studies and I guess what's important

13:33

to take away his. It. Doesn't have

13:35

to be. Wrong in the

13:37

sense of it was it was constructed

13:39

fraudulently or correctly. He can just be.

13:42

One data point among many. So

13:44

lesson here is to be careful about putting

13:46

too much weight on a single study. It's.

13:48

Easy to focus on the exciting or

13:50

surprising finding and forget all about the

13:52

other ones that may be less interesting.

13:55

Here. a lot of people including me

13:57

overlook the fact that from the very At

14:00

the start, the Backfire Effect was an outlier.

14:02

It only showed up in two of the

14:04

five experiments. Brendan, how has

14:06

this experience influenced the way you evaluate

14:08

studies? We

14:10

interrogate the science that we discuss

14:12

in my classes. I encourage the

14:15

students to take apart

14:17

the methodology of the research,

14:19

the assumptions that the authors

14:21

make, the flaws in their

14:23

experimental designs. I try

14:26

to foster the kind

14:28

of critical scientific inquiry that

14:31

I try to practice as a scientist in my

14:33

teaching in the classroom. You're a

14:35

political scientist. How does an understanding of

14:37

uncertainty factor into our political system?

14:39

We are coming into contact with

14:42

lots of studies that are being offered

14:44

as evidence for various kinds of policies and

14:46

interventions. And I think learning

14:49

about the uncertainty in science

14:51

and the value of

14:54

high quality science as well as the uncertainty inherent in

14:56

the process. People hold those both in our

14:58

heads at the same time is a really

15:01

important part of

15:03

hopefully being a leader in

15:05

this country in the 21st century. So

15:07

putting this all together, what does this tell

15:09

us about science? It's an

15:11

imperfect human process with many flaws,

15:15

but it's an incredibly powerful

15:17

one for learning about the world. It's

15:19

the best way we know how to learn

15:21

about the world. And I

15:24

think we can keep what's

15:27

great about science while

15:29

also remembering its highly

15:31

provisional nature. And if

15:34

we can strike that balance, it

15:37

can do great things. Oh, I love your

15:39

optimism. Today's

15:45

episode of Uncertain is about the ways

15:47

that studies can leave us overconfident. We

15:50

just heard about how Just So Stories can

15:52

make us feel overly certain about results that

15:54

are still a work in progress. And

15:57

now we've arrived at Act Two.

16:06

Sometimes studies get misleading results because

16:09

of random error, a weird samples

16:11

or study design, But sometimes science

16:13

gets things wrong because it's done

16:15

by humans. and humans are fallible

16:18

and imperfect. No matter

16:20

how much we like to think

16:22

that science is impartial, the truth

16:24

is human preferences and values influence

16:26

how science his son and that

16:28

means cultural factors and embedded prejudices

16:31

can sway the results that studies

16:33

produce. Someone who knows a

16:35

lot about this is Brandon of Bunim. Yeah.

16:38

I know this episode had a Brendan

16:40

and our first act and now we've

16:43

got a Brandon. Don't let it confusion

16:45

Brendan as the political Scientists Brandon is

16:47

a biologist. Here's

16:50

brand. I'm I'm an assistant professor that

16:53

Obama because you the Evolutionary Biology at

16:55

Yale University, in an external professor at

16:57

the Santa Fe Institute. Branded.

16:59

As given a lot of thought to scientific

17:01

authority, he grew up with a lot of

17:03

respect for scientists. I was raised

17:06

with this appreciation for scientific quote,

17:08

unquote ideas and certainly people who

17:10

did it. and it's A A

17:12

D. That is because of the

17:14

great thing said. Sides accomplish home,

17:16

you know, going to the moon

17:18

and. Drugs. For diseases

17:21

in the engineering breakthroughs. Ah, the

17:23

last century in so you know,

17:26

As a product of the things that sizes

17:28

created you know I had this view of

17:30

in this very positive view of sight. Out

17:32

of his plans, your views on uncertainty. Was

17:34

there a moment in your career or your

17:36

education where you fully came to grips with

17:39

the importance of uncertainties. A science. While.

17:41

I'm a i'm sitting a little bit here

17:43

but I think you know it. It looked

17:45

like every time I saw in the media

17:47

has Obama mother be as just Cc. the

17:50

sees the center of gravity fall of me.

17:52

All. Of these ideas white

17:54

certainty or merits. Or.

17:57

All these institutions. Send. Me:

18:00

The. Never. Made sense. right?

18:02

It's because. I. Was

18:05

raised by an African American woman

18:07

who's smarter they any body in

18:09

my department now. She.

18:11

Just didn't have the opportunity. To.

18:14

The notion that life gives people a chance based

18:16

on merit and you just work hard, work hard

18:18

and you'll get with were that's never been through.

18:20

Ever. Good. I saw somebody

18:22

brilliant and hard working. Did

18:25

nothing but barriers for that. The

18:27

her life she knew she was some up

18:30

more than most people and they get. Challenged.

18:33

Sounds sounds sad, sad it's I've

18:35

seen her be right a hundred

18:37

times and still why school administrators

18:39

or whoever the landlords of level

18:41

we were dealing with the top

18:43

be wrong and they when. Pressing.

18:47

Had it that influence your views of

18:49

scientific authority. Soviet That notion that

18:51

like that that the world's most of

18:53

work a certain way was never right

18:55

with me I think for me and

18:58

that sides the African American experience. And.

19:00

Marriage rates. At all

19:02

of these voices of authority. Told

19:04

us where we were supposed to be in

19:06

society and what we were supposed to be

19:08

doing and how we couldn't go to school.

19:11

It's so that's never worked. As I said

19:13

it's except that that is that The Gospel

19:15

of Certainties is another kind of authority. right?

19:18

And I think so I'd My point is,

19:20

I've never really entered sides that way. So.

19:22

How do you think a science now? I.

19:24

Think as I've made sure that

19:26

book to as a person N

19:29

B has had become meet you

19:31

know a member of the sides

19:33

workforce. And. The both my

19:36

appreciation of for science has

19:38

grown a and become much

19:40

more nuanced. And and I

19:42

mean my love of It's In the

19:44

Bay. Positive sense. And.

19:47

My understanding of it's

19:49

flaws in it's major

19:51

problems and pitfalls and

19:53

challenges. So he of us

19:56

science despite it's shortcomings. I

19:59

appreciate. many more ways the power

20:01

of it and what makes it

20:03

beautiful and I

20:06

understand the challenges and the damaging

20:08

aspects of you know the damage

20:10

that it can cause. What

20:12

do you mean when you say the damage it can cause?

20:15

On one end we mean that

20:17

the products of science can be

20:19

damaging right so you know we

20:21

talk about the bomb, we're talking

20:24

about biological weapons. Right

20:26

the products of science can be very

20:28

harmful and in these two cases they

20:30

were actually created specifically to cause damage.

20:33

The much more pernicious but

20:37

simultaneously more violent

20:40

way is the ideas. So

20:42

you mean some of the actual ideas and theories that

20:44

science puts out? I'm thinking here

20:46

of eugenics. You can't look

20:49

at like the eugenics movement and say oh

20:51

well that was just a fringe thing. Like

20:53

no it wasn't. That

20:55

was the field. That

20:58

was the way the mainstream thoughts.

21:01

For instance, Thomas Jefferson was the

21:04

preeminent polymath of his

21:07

time. He was a technical

21:10

and evidence-based and profoundly

21:14

scientific thinker for his time.

21:17

What is the lesson we should take from this? When

21:20

the process for all of

21:22

the reasons doesn't have

21:24

pay attention to the

21:26

way social influences or

21:29

biases or power

21:31

are influencing the types of things

21:33

we're asking and how we're asking them. Science

21:38

can get things shockingly

21:40

wrong. It can lead

21:42

us down really really bad incorrect

21:45

paths that end up causing harm.

21:48

How does science get these bad ideas to begin

21:50

with? It can be because other

21:53

interests, biases that you

21:55

may not see your own and

21:58

societies infiltrate process

22:00

and steer the

22:03

process in order

22:05

to try to get to a

22:07

product that we oftentimes find out

22:10

was based on a broken idea. We

22:13

think that science is objective, but you're

22:16

arguing that, in fact, we're bringing our

22:18

human biases to bear here. Even

22:21

the nature of the questions we're asking is not

22:23

objective, right? The term bias

22:26

doesn't even necessarily mean bad

22:28

or harmful. It

22:32

means that you are a person, sentient

22:36

individual who has experienced things

22:38

on the earth. Invariably,

22:40

there is no way that

22:43

is not going to influence the

22:45

manner that you do your work. From

22:48

me writing my manuscripts in English.

22:53

Let's just start there. Not

22:55

only does that influence to

22:57

whom I'm speaking, it

22:59

influences the shape of the manner that

23:01

I describe certain ideas, because

23:04

languages have different means of describing

23:06

things. So you're saying that scientists

23:08

need to look for and acknowledge the limitations of

23:10

their work? I report

23:13

the limits of my work for me.

23:16

I think that is the responsible way to

23:18

do science. But that stands out to

23:20

people, and they're like, wait a minute, what

23:22

are you doing? Why would you be pointing out the flaws in

23:25

your own work, Brandon? Is that

23:27

imposter syndrome? No, it's not imposter syndrome.

23:29

It's me being a responsible scientist. I've

23:32

heard a lot of talk within the scientific

23:34

community in recent years about making it easier

23:36

for scientists to correct course or

23:38

issue retractions without undue penalty.

23:41

Should we think of being wrong as

23:43

the occasional price of being ambitious and

23:45

creative? Science is

23:47

not about the proportion of times

23:49

that you're right. It's what you are

23:51

right about. In fact, many

23:55

of the people who are right

23:57

about important things were all about

24:00

many many many many many many many many many many

24:02

many many many many many many many many many other

24:04

things. Okay, so you're saying there's

24:06

a lot of cases where scientists have been

24:08

wrong and we tend to focus on the

24:10

correct ideas and forget the ones that we

24:12

abandoned. I have this ambition

24:15

to give a seminar where I talk exclusively

24:17

about things I was wrong about. Okay?

24:20

And when I do that,

24:22

frankly, that will be a

24:25

sign of my eminence. And

24:28

you can boldly profess your wrongness without losing

24:30

your credibility. Admitting you're

24:33

wrong in explaining what you

24:35

got wrong is actually a

24:38

demonstration of your power,

24:41

knowledge and authority. And

24:44

demonstrating the wrongness and what you've

24:47

learned is precisely what makes science

24:49

the greatest knowledge creation instrument in

24:51

the history of the universe. How

24:54

do you balance wrongness with authority? Look,

24:57

I'm an arrogant professor like everybody else

24:59

is. I'm not modest. I

25:01

think I'm right about things. I'm not

25:04

saying you should expect to be wrong

25:06

or try to be wrong. But if

25:08

you are, just say so and explain

25:10

to us why you're wrong and what

25:12

we can learn because being wrong is

25:15

a critical part to building the understanding.

25:17

Does the public need a better understanding of the

25:19

provisional nature of science and the way that being

25:22

wrong is a natural part of the process? I

25:24

believe it's the only way science is going to survive as

25:27

an institution is if we start

25:30

to actually lay bare and make transparent

25:32

all of these dimensions of the way

25:34

that it works. Uncertainty

25:36

is not a sign

25:39

of a problem. Uncertainty

25:43

is oftentimes a

25:46

feature of the way we're studying the

25:48

natural world. Uncertainty

25:51

will be a part of virtually

25:53

every natural system in the universe.

25:56

The question is, How

25:58

do we change that? uncertainty?? How

26:00

do we inform the parameters of that

26:02

uncertainty? What's. Your party

26:04

take away. what should the public

26:06

know about uncertainty and science? So.

26:09

The idea is we need to disabuse ourselves,

26:11

have served the even be the goal. The.

26:14

Goal is understanding the world

26:17

and understanding chad exist with

26:19

accumulated uncertainties That sides is

26:21

kind of informing the. And

26:24

to me with our data. Let

26:29

go of the need for certainty that

26:31

seems like that. Life advice. Till. We.

26:45

Spent much of today's episode exploring how

26:47

easy it is. Pressed the fall a

26:49

little to in love with ideas which

26:51

is problematic when they turn out to

26:53

be wrong. And

27:00

the history of science is full of

27:02

ideas that were not quite right or

27:04

even dead wrong. That science has also

27:06

eliminated many useful truth about the universe,

27:09

and there's some things that scientists can

27:11

do to point themselves in that direction.

27:13

The way that we phrase it

27:15

is that the priority for researchers

27:17

should be on getting of bread

27:19

not be reached. The notion that

27:21

I have to be right means

27:23

that I need to take a

27:25

defense attack. When you find a

27:27

flaw, that prioritization of getting it

27:29

right seems that if you say

27:31

I think I see something wrong

27:33

with your research, I say oh

27:35

really, what is it helped me

27:37

cause my goal is to make

27:39

sure that it's right on an

27:41

episode of Uncertain Meters. for hooking.

27:44

Be. In

27:51

his produce a me is the Us food and and

27:53

sat on the. Know how serious heart

27:55

is there any he says he to

27:58

have I. I'm use as them. That

28:00

an. Ending at

28:02

a series was provided a U C.

28:04

Berkeley is greater good science and for

28:06

his part of the expanding awareness. Of

28:08

the science of intellectual A humility initiative.

28:11

Which is supported by the time simple can

28:13

envision. This is uncertain

28:15

of such as from Scientific

28:17

American and hopeful.