it seems basic right we all know
fact is fact vaccines don’t cause autism
fact human-caused climate change is
wreaking havoc on the earth fact the
earth is a sphere that orbits the Sun
facts are things were sure about but
what do you think what do you do when
you seem to have a difference in facts
like in the above video perhaps you
might think that there’s a difference in
knowledge a difference in data you and
the other person might be educated
differently but I actually don’t think
that’s the case at all at least in
today’s climate I think it’s not a
difference in facts but a difference in
what a fact is what I think’s the case
is that we’re not on the same page as to
what differentiates truths and mistruths
and this leads to a bigger and even more
fundamental problem how do we as
individuals as a society know how to act
when we can’t can’t even agree on a
basis of facts or even on a basis of
what a fact should be so let’s start
with a pretty basic question what is a
fact well a fact can only be defined one
way and that’s through the scientific
method so the scientific method is one
of the most powerful and important ideas
ever conceived by man it allows us to
understand nature to solve problems or
even to invent but it has very specific
steps it starts with an observation we
see something about the world it
intrigues us we want to know more we ask
the important questions like why or how
then we develop a hypothesis we take our
best guess we apply our existing
understanding of the world and formulate
what we think the answer to our
interesting question is then we
formulate a testable prediction if my
hypothesis is correct then this other
observation should be able to be made we
obviously know in one situation that our
hypothesis fits that’s why it’s our
hypothesis in the first place
but we seek to change the conditions
question our assumptions so that we can
determine what the truth is then we
conduct the experiment which either
accepts or rejects our hypothesis then
most importantly we iterate this is
perhaps the most and crucial most
crucial part by iterating we’re able to
advance our understanding we take it
further we ask deeper questions we have
different tests now most importantly we
seek to push things our hypothesis our
assumptions our understandings until we
break them only then do we discover only
then do we learn now none of this is new
to you every middle schooler in the
country is taught the above but even if
you were taught the above your teachers
probably didn’t take the time to teach
you the long-range consequences the
long-term effects of this way of
thinking at least that’s what current
events seem to show and there are two in
my opinion misconceptions about the
scientific methods that I want to talk
about today and the first one is
certainty the first thing it’s important
to understand about the scientific
method is that nothing is certain we
keep on iterating on hypotheses coming
up with new tests until they break the
only time we can be certain is when the
hypothesis is disproven until then the
hypothesis is not proven but simply not
yet disproven and a theory is just a
system of ideas that we think explains
something it’s kind of our best guess
it’s hypotheses that we think is
probably right that we have confidence
in scientists can say they believe in
something with more or less certainty
they can say they’re more more or less
confident but if you ask a scientist if
they’re sure if you ask your scientist
if they’re certain they’ll say no
because if they’re following the
scientific method they never will be
fact the Earth orbits the Sun I think
this is something that hopefully we can
all agree on so this is called the
heliocentric theory
Noma emphasis on the world theory saying
that the correct model of the solar
system is that all the planets orbit the
Sun but we didn’t always used to think
this way we used to believe in
geocentrism which is that everything
orbits the earth now we made an
observation we looked up at the sky and
that was the thing that made the most
sense right why should we assume that
we’re floating around some ball in the
sky we aren’t we aren’t moving right now
we make correct collected data and
guided more evidence to this theory and
in fact when we had kind of conflicting
evidence we just modified the geocentric
theory to make it still work
now this all changed when Nicholas
Copernicus published on the revolutions
of the celestial spheres where he
presented an alternate theory the theory
of gravitation and of heliocentrism it
was a mathematical model really not even
observations that was more simple and
elegant and altogether more sensical but
we didn’t believe heliocentrism until
Galileo observed the moons of Jupiter
more specifically he observe this the
moons orbiting Jupiter itself that was
absolutely undeniable proof that there
were bodies orbiting things that weren’t
earth we kept believing and geocentrism
until we broke it beyond deniability now
every observation every space mission
every piece of data ever collected by
man supports this model of the solar
system we’re extremely unlikely to find
evidence that disproves the fact that
the Earth orbits the Sun that the Earth
orbits the Sun is a fact but it is also
a hypothesis we accept it as a fact in
base our calculations and lives on it
but there’s always a chance however
small that we are wrong that we are not
orbiting the Sun and ultimately the
foundation of the scientific method is
holding both to be true at once
simultaneously basing our calculations
have not on it but being completely open
to being wrong now that’s a very current
intuitive counterintuitive mental state
it’s almost double think holding two
opposite things to be true at once
except this is absolutely important
absolutely vital if we can’t hold
electromagnetic theory to be true well
open to being wrong we couldn’t have
invented sensors and computers and
transistors and electron colliders that
would eventually disprove that theory it
has to be both true and false at once
second thing about the scientific method
non destroy both science in general says
we can prove things not in disprove
things let’s take two examples we can
all agree that Santa Claus or the Easter
Bunny are falsehoods they do not exist
any rational adult would agree but
question can you disprove the existence
of either of these two stories sure you
can prove to me that they exist you can
find Santa Claus caption study his
reindeer find his lair in the North Pole
you can prove all of these things but
can you prove to me that he is merely
the figment of a child’s imagination no
you cannot it’s non disprovable you
simply don’t find any evidence that
supports his existence so instead we
have to look at all available evidence
and use Occam’s razor what’s the most
likely and simple and logical
explanation that fits the observations
that we’re making what’s more likely
that a man living in the ice caps has
reindeer that defy the laws of physics
and carries enough presents on his small
sleigh that would normally occupy the
volume of a large mountain or that into
the history of societal tradition
parents creat the idea and the story of
such a man and put presents under the
tree for their child what’s more
believable and what’s more likely that a
human-sized and sentient rabbit exists
or that this is again a story these
things are by the scientific method
fundamentally non disprovable now this
brings me back to autism fact vaccines
don’t cause autism but when we ask the
scientists about this what do they say
they say no link has been shown they
don’t say vaccines don’t cause autism
they say no link has been shown because
that’s how the scientific method works
now you can prove vaccines cause autism
right you can have two groups of babies
with large sample sizes you have a test
group and a control group with a control
group you don’t give them vaccines and
with the test group you do give them
back scenes and then you follow these
babies along their lives
you see if one group is more or less
likely to develop signs of autism if you
see a disproportionate development of
autism in the test group you have proven
vaccines cause autism
but how do you prove vaccines don’t
cause autism you can’t you simply find
no difference in the expression of
autism in the test and control group you
simply show that there is no link
proving that vaccines don’t cause autism
is just as impossible as proving that
Santa Claus doesn’t exist both
fundamentally impossible let’s change
topics the science is not settled on
this me and I tell somebody said just
because you have a group of scientists
and stood up and said here is the fact
we don’t know what’s causing climate
change on this planet and the idea of
spending trillions and trillions of
dollars to try and reduce co2 emissions
is not the right course for us four
percent of US Senate Republicans
publicly questioned the science of
global warm AIDS the dinosaurs was
dramatically warmer than this is right
now and it didn’t cook the planet and in
fact life is fine you convinced that
climate change is man-made
well I look I don’t know that that is a
resolved issue in science today so what
I’m hearing from this video is that we
need to be certain about something
before we act but don’t you see how this
conflicts we’ve just agreed that you can
never be sure about anything if the bar
for action is this impossible standard
we never take action we drowned before
we put on a life jacket so what’s the
right way to decide whether or not to
act so it’s actually an expected value
equation shown here it’s the chance of
something something happening multiplied
by the goodness of that happening minus
the chance of some other event happening
multiplied by the badness of that event
happening apply to autism X’s vaccines
functioning properly why these vaccines
functioning improperly and causing
autism so putting some numbers to this
let’s say there’s a 1% chance that
vaccines cause autism it’s not but let’s
just say there is so you have a 99%
chance of good things happening and in
this case
on a scale of 1 100 let’s say you’re
saving millions of lives worldwide per
year let’s say that’s a 80 on a scale of
1 100 now on the 1 percent chance that
you your kid does get autism you know
that’s really bad because it’s your kid
even worse the millions of other kids
dying so let’s put that at 100 so even
in that case it’s a 78 point 2 right and
if it’s greater than 50 we should act so
here’s the thing though we don’t think
about decisions this way when we think
about decisions we ask ourselves
questions and we generally ask ourselves
this question what happens if I do
something hope to leave you today with
these three tools because at the end of
the day the scientific method and these
three ideas are what separates man from
ape it’s what has allowed us in the past
to get here to invent to progress and to
thrive if we want a positive future
these three ideas are not optional they
are necessary let’s hope we remember how
we got here before it is too late thank
you very much
[Applause]
fact is fact vaccines don’t cause autism
fact human-caused climate change is
wreaking havoc on the earth fact the
earth is a sphere that orbits the Sun
facts are things were sure about but
what do you think what do you do when
you seem to have a difference in facts
like in the above video perhaps you
might think that there’s a difference in
knowledge a difference in data you and
the other person might be educated
differently but I actually don’t think
that’s the case at all at least in
today’s climate I think it’s not a
difference in facts but a difference in
what a fact is what I think’s the case
is that we’re not on the same page as to
what differentiates truths and mistruths
and this leads to a bigger and even more
fundamental problem how do we as
individuals as a society know how to act
when we can’t can’t even agree on a
basis of facts or even on a basis of
what a fact should be so let’s start
with a pretty basic question what is a
fact well a fact can only be defined one
way and that’s through the scientific
method so the scientific method is one
of the most powerful and important ideas
ever conceived by man it allows us to
understand nature to solve problems or
even to invent but it has very specific
steps it starts with an observation we
see something about the world it
intrigues us we want to know more we ask
the important questions like why or how
then we develop a hypothesis we take our
best guess we apply our existing
understanding of the world and formulate
what we think the answer to our
interesting question is then we
formulate a testable prediction if my
hypothesis is correct then this other
observation should be able to be made we
obviously know in one situation that our
hypothesis fits that’s why it’s our
hypothesis in the first place
but we seek to change the conditions
question our assumptions so that we can
determine what the truth is then we
conduct the experiment which either
accepts or rejects our hypothesis then
most importantly we iterate this is
perhaps the most and crucial most
crucial part by iterating we’re able to
advance our understanding we take it
further we ask deeper questions we have
different tests now most importantly we
seek to push things our hypothesis our
assumptions our understandings until we
break them only then do we discover only
then do we learn now none of this is new
to you every middle schooler in the
country is taught the above but even if
you were taught the above your teachers
probably didn’t take the time to teach
you the long-range consequences the
long-term effects of this way of
thinking at least that’s what current
events seem to show and there are two in
my opinion misconceptions about the
scientific methods that I want to talk
about today and the first one is
certainty the first thing it’s important
to understand about the scientific
method is that nothing is certain we
keep on iterating on hypotheses coming
up with new tests until they break the
only time we can be certain is when the
hypothesis is disproven until then the
hypothesis is not proven but simply not
yet disproven and a theory is just a
system of ideas that we think explains
something it’s kind of our best guess
it’s hypotheses that we think is
probably right that we have confidence
in scientists can say they believe in
something with more or less certainty
they can say they’re more more or less
confident but if you ask a scientist if
they’re sure if you ask your scientist
if they’re certain they’ll say no
because if they’re following the
scientific method they never will be
fact the Earth orbits the Sun I think
this is something that hopefully we can
all agree on so this is called the
heliocentric theory
Noma emphasis on the world theory saying
that the correct model of the solar
system is that all the planets orbit the
Sun but we didn’t always used to think
this way we used to believe in
geocentrism which is that everything
orbits the earth now we made an
observation we looked up at the sky and
that was the thing that made the most
sense right why should we assume that
we’re floating around some ball in the
sky we aren’t we aren’t moving right now
we make correct collected data and
guided more evidence to this theory and
in fact when we had kind of conflicting
evidence we just modified the geocentric
theory to make it still work
now this all changed when Nicholas
Copernicus published on the revolutions
of the celestial spheres where he
presented an alternate theory the theory
of gravitation and of heliocentrism it
was a mathematical model really not even
observations that was more simple and
elegant and altogether more sensical but
we didn’t believe heliocentrism until
Galileo observed the moons of Jupiter
more specifically he observe this the
moons orbiting Jupiter itself that was
absolutely undeniable proof that there
were bodies orbiting things that weren’t
earth we kept believing and geocentrism
until we broke it beyond deniability now
every observation every space mission
every piece of data ever collected by
man supports this model of the solar
system we’re extremely unlikely to find
evidence that disproves the fact that
the Earth orbits the Sun that the Earth
orbits the Sun is a fact but it is also
a hypothesis we accept it as a fact in
base our calculations and lives on it
but there’s always a chance however
small that we are wrong that we are not
orbiting the Sun and ultimately the
foundation of the scientific method is
holding both to be true at once
simultaneously basing our calculations
have not on it but being completely open
to being wrong now that’s a very current
intuitive counterintuitive mental state
it’s almost double think holding two
opposite things to be true at once
except this is absolutely important
absolutely vital if we can’t hold
electromagnetic theory to be true well
open to being wrong we couldn’t have
invented sensors and computers and
transistors and electron colliders that
would eventually disprove that theory it
has to be both true and false at once
second thing about the scientific method
non destroy both science in general says
we can prove things not in disprove
things let’s take two examples we can
all agree that Santa Claus or the Easter
Bunny are falsehoods they do not exist
any rational adult would agree but
question can you disprove the existence
of either of these two stories sure you
can prove to me that they exist you can
find Santa Claus caption study his
reindeer find his lair in the North Pole
you can prove all of these things but
can you prove to me that he is merely
the figment of a child’s imagination no
you cannot it’s non disprovable you
simply don’t find any evidence that
supports his existence so instead we
have to look at all available evidence
and use Occam’s razor what’s the most
likely and simple and logical
explanation that fits the observations
that we’re making what’s more likely
that a man living in the ice caps has
reindeer that defy the laws of physics
and carries enough presents on his small
sleigh that would normally occupy the
volume of a large mountain or that into
the history of societal tradition
parents creat the idea and the story of
such a man and put presents under the
tree for their child what’s more
believable and what’s more likely that a
human-sized and sentient rabbit exists
or that this is again a story these
things are by the scientific method
fundamentally non disprovable now this
brings me back to autism fact vaccines
don’t cause autism but when we ask the
scientists about this what do they say
they say no link has been shown they
don’t say vaccines don’t cause autism
they say no link has been shown because
that’s how the scientific method works
now you can prove vaccines cause autism
right you can have two groups of babies
with large sample sizes you have a test
group and a control group with a control
group you don’t give them vaccines and
with the test group you do give them
back scenes and then you follow these
babies along their lives
you see if one group is more or less
likely to develop signs of autism if you
see a disproportionate development of
autism in the test group you have proven
vaccines cause autism
but how do you prove vaccines don’t
cause autism you can’t you simply find
no difference in the expression of
autism in the test and control group you
simply show that there is no link
proving that vaccines don’t cause autism
is just as impossible as proving that
Santa Claus doesn’t exist both
fundamentally impossible let’s change
topics the science is not settled on
this me and I tell somebody said just
because you have a group of scientists
and stood up and said here is the fact
we don’t know what’s causing climate
change on this planet and the idea of
spending trillions and trillions of
dollars to try and reduce co2 emissions
is not the right course for us four
percent of US Senate Republicans
publicly questioned the science of
global warm AIDS the dinosaurs was
dramatically warmer than this is right
now and it didn’t cook the planet and in
fact life is fine you convinced that
climate change is man-made
well I look I don’t know that that is a
resolved issue in science today so what
I’m hearing from this video is that we
need to be certain about something
before we act but don’t you see how this
conflicts we’ve just agreed that you can
never be sure about anything if the bar
for action is this impossible standard
we never take action we drowned before
we put on a life jacket so what’s the
right way to decide whether or not to
act so it’s actually an expected value
equation shown here it’s the chance of
something something happening multiplied
by the goodness of that happening minus
the chance of some other event happening
multiplied by the badness of that event
happening apply to autism X’s vaccines
functioning properly why these vaccines
functioning improperly and causing
autism so putting some numbers to this
let’s say there’s a 1% chance that
vaccines cause autism it’s not but let’s
just say there is so you have a 99%
chance of good things happening and in
this case
on a scale of 1 100 let’s say you’re
saving millions of lives worldwide per
year let’s say that’s a 80 on a scale of
1 100 now on the 1 percent chance that
you your kid does get autism you know
that’s really bad because it’s your kid
even worse the millions of other kids
dying so let’s put that at 100 so even
in that case it’s a 78 point 2 right and
if it’s greater than 50 we should act so
here’s the thing though we don’t think
about decisions this way when we think
about decisions we ask ourselves
questions and we generally ask ourselves
this question what happens if I do
something hope to leave you today with
these three tools because at the end of
the day the scientific method and these
three ideas are what separates man from
ape it’s what has allowed us in the past
to get here to invent to progress and to
thrive if we want a positive future
these three ideas are not optional they
are necessary let’s hope we remember how
we got here before it is too late thank
you very much
[Applause]
Please follow and like us: