Hi, Clifford
Goldstein here your host
00:00:20.95\00:00:23.37
for Contending for the Faith
and this is part of a series
00:00:23.40\00:00:27.81
I've been doing
on faith and science.
00:00:27.84\00:00:31.30
And you know,
speaking of science
00:00:31.33\00:00:33.90
I recently came across
some fascinating studies
00:00:33.93\00:00:38.14
using the scientific
method of correlation.
00:00:38.17\00:00:42.36
And they came to some
fascinating conclusions.
00:00:42.39\00:00:46.53
Now remember I'm
talking science here.
00:00:46.56\00:00:50.50
So we have to give
this serious consideration.
00:00:50.53\00:00:53.84
I mean, if science
could get us to the moon,
00:00:53.87\00:00:56.72
build
nanotechnology and GPS systems
00:00:56.75\00:01:01.13
that we can carry in our pockets
00:01:01.16\00:01:03.85
then it's got to be
on to something, right.
00:01:03.88\00:01:06.05
Well, of course
science is on to something
00:01:06.08\00:01:08.78
I don't think there's
any question about that.
00:01:08.81\00:01:11.37
Exactly what it's on to
well, that's another matter
00:01:11.40\00:01:15.84
and that's what, what
exactly is science on to
00:01:15.87\00:01:20.34
when it tells us
things about the world.
00:01:20.37\00:01:23.87
Anyway there is a study showing
00:01:23.90\00:01:28.52
a close statistical correlation
between the use of margarine
00:01:28.55\00:01:34.96
and the rates of
divorce in a home.
00:01:34.99\00:01:37.87
I mean, there is a
chart you can follow
00:01:37.90\00:01:40.47
which shows an amazing
correlation between the two.
00:01:40.50\00:01:45.35
The use of margarine
tracks the weight of divorce
00:01:45.38\00:01:50.05
with the 99% correlation.
00:01:50.08\00:01:54.78
I mean, incredible.
00:01:54.81\00:01:56.46
I mean, it shows up
00:01:56.49\00:01:57.67
when there was more margarine
in home the divorce rates go up
00:01:57.70\00:02:02.23
and when there is less margarine
00:02:02.26\00:02:04.67
the divorce rates go down.
00:02:04.70\00:02:07.64
The correlation is astonishing.
00:02:07.67\00:02:11.59
But there is more.
00:02:11.62\00:02:12.98
Did you know that
there is a power correlation
00:02:13.01\00:02:16.88
between the rising per
capita consumption of cheese
00:02:16.91\00:02:22.81
to the number of people
00:02:22.84\00:02:24.45
who died by coming
entangled in their bed sheets.
00:02:24.48\00:02:28.86
I mean, the
correlation is there,
00:02:28.89\00:02:31.93
you can't deny the correlation.
00:02:31.96\00:02:34.73
They track each other
00:02:34.76\00:02:37.24
that is the rate
of cheese consumption
00:02:37.27\00:02:40.41
and the rate of those
who died by being tangled
00:02:40.44\00:02:43.71
in their bed sheets
track each other very closely.
00:02:43.74\00:02:49.00
How could that be?
00:02:49.03\00:02:51.08
Who knows and you
can earn it better
00:02:51.11\00:02:53.39
all you want but you can't deny
00:02:53.42\00:02:55.76
the reality of the correlation.
00:02:55.79\00:02:59.69
Or what about the
amazing correlation
00:02:59.72\00:03:03.07
between the rising
number of Facebook users
00:03:03.10\00:03:06.75
and the growing
Greek death crises.
00:03:06.78\00:03:10.78
The Correlation is there.
00:03:10.81\00:03:13.11
Or what about the fact
00:03:13.14\00:03:14.70
that there is an incredibly
close statistical correlation
00:03:14.73\00:03:18.84
between the number of people
00:03:18.87\00:03:20.92
who drown in
swimming pools every year
00:03:20.95\00:03:24.37
and the number of movies
that Nicolas Cage appear in.
00:03:24.40\00:03:28.59
I mean, if you were
to chart a graph looking
00:03:28.62\00:03:31.65
at the correlation
you would be astonished,
00:03:31.68\00:03:35.13
one follows the other as closely
00:03:35.16\00:03:37.82
as heat follows fire.
00:03:37.85\00:03:41.28
Now, of course come on here,
00:03:41.31\00:03:45.25
oh, this is a bit crazy.
00:03:45.28\00:03:46.72
I can't be serious. Can I?
00:03:46.75\00:03:49.85
Well, in one
level of course not.
00:03:49.88\00:03:52.95
I got these
powerful correlations
00:03:52.98\00:03:55.65
from a website called
"Spurious Correlations."
00:03:55.68\00:04:00.69
And the name says it all.
00:04:00.72\00:04:02.42
It was some criminology student
00:04:02.45\00:04:04.66
in Harvard
university created the site
00:04:04.69\00:04:08.10
but he was
making a serious point.
00:04:08.13\00:04:11.24
He was making the serious point
00:04:11.27\00:04:13.93
that we have to be very careful
00:04:13.96\00:04:16.59
when we hear scientific
pronouncements saying that
00:04:16.62\00:04:21.14
a link has been
found between X and Y.
00:04:21.17\00:04:25.90
You can fill in
the blanks for X and Y,
00:04:25.93\00:04:29.59
you would have a lot of options.
00:04:29.62\00:04:33.16
I mean, after all
haven't we been study showing
00:04:33.19\00:04:37.01
that the rise in
alcohol consumption
00:04:37.04\00:04:40.44
at least to a certain degree
00:04:40.47\00:04:42.50
leads to a
decrease in heart attacks.
00:04:42.53\00:04:45.59
There's been some scientific
studies making that claim
00:04:45.62\00:04:49.16
because there been
some powerful correlations
00:04:49.19\00:04:52.31
between the two.
00:04:52.34\00:04:54.17
Of course, there had
been other scientific studies
00:04:54.20\00:04:57.54
that have challenged that
and I guess the question is,
00:04:57.57\00:05:01.39
which one is correct.
00:05:01.42\00:05:03.94
I mean, haven't we
also been told for decades
00:05:03.97\00:05:07.34
that an increase
in fat consumption
00:05:07.37\00:05:10.77
can lead to heart attacks.
00:05:10.80\00:05:12.40
I mean, the
correlation was there,
00:05:12.43\00:05:14.66
no one's gonna deny it.
00:05:14.69\00:05:16.51
But you know, I
recently saw a headline
00:05:16.54\00:05:19.21
in Time Magazine with
new scientific studies
00:05:19.24\00:05:23.13
saying that that
correlation was false.
00:05:23.16\00:05:26.92
The headline in Time Magazine,
00:05:26.95\00:05:30.43
June 12th, 2014 read,
00:05:30.46\00:05:33.84
"Ending the War on
Fat" and the caption said,
00:05:33.87\00:05:40.36
"For decades, it
has been the most
00:05:40.39\00:05:42.58
vilified nutrient
in the American diet.
00:05:42.61\00:05:46.09
But new science
reveals fat isn't
00:05:46.12\00:05:50.25
what's hurting our health."
00:05:50.28\00:05:52.41
Whoa. New science?
00:05:52.44\00:05:55.47
That means for decades
all the old science was wrong.
00:05:55.50\00:05:59.76
Science wrong, all
those powerful correlations
00:05:59.79\00:06:04.52
between fat and heart diseases
00:06:04.55\00:06:07.22
were apparently as
misleading or maybe not
00:06:07.25\00:06:10.40
but to some degree is misleading
00:06:10.43\00:06:12.59
as the correlation
between the number of movies
00:06:12.62\00:06:15.88
Nick Cage plays in
and the number of people
00:06:15.91\00:06:18.60
who drown in swimming pools.
00:06:18.63\00:06:21.81
What about the correlation
00:06:21.84\00:06:23.09
between vaccinations and autism
00:06:23.12\00:06:25.94
or cancer and living
near high power wires
00:06:25.97\00:06:29.55
or the correlation between
women taking hormone therapy
00:06:29.58\00:06:33.47
and lower than average
rates of heart diseases.
00:06:33.50\00:06:37.66
Or how about this correlation?
00:06:37.69\00:06:41.43
The faster windmills
are observed to rotate,
00:06:41.46\00:06:46.32
the more wind is
observed to be present.
00:06:46.35\00:06:49.95
So the correlation is there.
00:06:49.98\00:06:52.07
The faster moving windmills
the more wind is there.
00:06:52.10\00:06:56.24
Thus contra-logically argue that
00:06:56.27\00:06:58.56
the windmills create the wind?
00:06:58.59\00:07:01.45
I mean, they are
called windmills, right,
00:07:01.48\00:07:04.11
and you can't deny
00:07:04.14\00:07:05.17
the correlation either, can you?
00:07:05.20\00:07:08.48
Now of course,
00:07:08.51\00:07:10.86
everyone knows or should know
00:07:10.89\00:07:13.78
and that was--
which is the whole point
00:07:13.81\00:07:15.58
of spurious
correlation the website
00:07:15.61\00:07:18.63
is that
correlation is not causation.
00:07:18.66\00:07:22.92
The two events closely correlate
00:07:22.95\00:07:25.50
such as the
drowning in swimming pool
00:07:25.53\00:07:27.73
and Nick Cage the
movies Nick Cage starred
00:07:27.76\00:07:31.11
doesn't mean that
one causes the other
00:07:31.14\00:07:33.92
or that even one has
anything to do with the other.
00:07:33.95\00:07:37.69
Okay, it might and
scientist and people
00:07:37.72\00:07:41.53
and every day do
they look at correlation,
00:07:41.56\00:07:44.90
try to discover
causes but that doesn't mean
00:07:44.93\00:07:48.16
the correlation is the cause.
00:07:48.19\00:07:51.51
And the million dollar question
00:07:51.54\00:07:54.46
of science is
how do you determine
00:07:54.49\00:07:58.03
if correlation
is or isn't a cause.
00:07:58.06\00:08:01.66
Sometimes it is,
some times it isn't
00:08:01.69\00:08:05.10
but how do we
know the difference?
00:08:05.13\00:08:08.74
Now the
correlation is not causation,
00:08:08.77\00:08:11.84
argument can be a
very powerful argument.
00:08:11.87\00:08:16.32
After all as we
just saw the correlation
00:08:16.35\00:08:19.47
between margarine and divorce
00:08:19.50\00:08:21.88
and clearly one is not
the cause of the other.
00:08:21.91\00:08:26.07
But you know,
the tobacco industry
00:08:26.10\00:08:28.97
for decades for as
long as it could get away
00:08:29.00\00:08:31.86
with argued
against the causation.
00:08:31.89\00:08:34.42
It argued used the causation
00:08:34.45\00:08:37.06
is not correlation
argument against the correlation
00:08:37.09\00:08:41.39
between smoking and the diseases
00:08:41.42\00:08:44.87
that are believed to
be caused by smoking.
00:08:44.90\00:08:48.28
With this the marriage
00:08:48.31\00:08:49.98
the margarine
divorce correlation
00:08:50.01\00:08:53.14
and yet we-- and
yet scientist working
00:08:53.17\00:08:56.19
for big tobacco tried to disk
00:08:56.22\00:08:58.93
the cancer
cigarette correlation as well.
00:08:58.96\00:09:02.72
I mean, after all
George Burns smokes cigars
00:09:02.75\00:09:07.28
and George Burns
lived to be 100 years old.
00:09:07.31\00:09:12.69
But anyway the point is
correlation is not causation
00:09:12.72\00:09:17.38
except when it is causation.
00:09:17.41\00:09:20.10
And so the big
question for science is,
00:09:20.13\00:09:22.76
how do we know?
00:09:22.79\00:09:24.24
How do we know
that our theories match
00:09:24.27\00:09:26.27
and explain the
facts on the ground?
00:09:26.30\00:09:28.84
How do we know
that our understanding,
00:09:28.87\00:09:30.91
our explanations
of causes are correct?
00:09:30.94\00:09:34.30
How does scientist
know that their data
00:09:34.33\00:09:37.37
and that their interpretation
of the data is right?
00:09:37.40\00:09:41.48
You know, I recently
saw something on Twitter.
00:09:41.51\00:09:44.77
It showed a
flood in Saudi Arabia.
00:09:44.80\00:09:49.44
A flood in Saudi
Arabia, I mean, come on.
00:09:49.47\00:09:53.36
If that is it more proof
of global warming what is?
00:09:53.39\00:09:58.39
I mean, if that
doesn't clinch the argument
00:09:58.42\00:10:01.13
for global warming what does?
00:10:01.16\00:10:03.43
Talk about
proof, the only problem,
00:10:03.46\00:10:06.89
the only problem
the flood occurred
00:10:06.92\00:10:09.44
in Saudi Arabia
in 1941 long before
00:10:09.47\00:10:14.64
we were supposedly destroying
00:10:14.67\00:10:16.43
the world with
our carbon footprint.
00:10:16.46\00:10:18.81
Now here's the point here.
00:10:18.84\00:10:20.93
I don't want to get
into this global warming
00:10:20.96\00:10:23.26
debate one way or the other.
00:10:23.29\00:10:25.64
Only I do find it
very spurious, very silly
00:10:25.67\00:10:31.22
that every time there
is an exceedingly hot day
00:10:31.25\00:10:34.11
or there is a new storm,
00:10:34.14\00:10:35.69
or there is some
extreme in weather
00:10:35.72\00:10:38.06
we are sure by the
people who know this more proof,
00:10:38.09\00:10:42.19
this is more
evidence of global warming.
00:10:42.22\00:10:46.88
Now if you been-- maybe they are
00:10:46.91\00:10:48.88
maybe they aren't
00:10:48.91\00:10:50.21
but the fact
proving things in science
00:10:50.24\00:10:53.03
is despite all of
the hype to the contrary
00:10:53.06\00:10:56.91
a very problematic,
very, very subjective exercise.
00:10:56.94\00:11:02.80
See, if you've been
following this program,
00:11:02.83\00:11:05.23
if you've been
following this series at all
00:11:05.26\00:11:07.88
you will see, you
will have seen that
00:11:07.91\00:11:09.43
science is not this clear
cut objective pursuit of truth
00:11:09.46\00:11:15.30
that it's often
been portrayed as.
00:11:15.33\00:11:18.29
On the contrary
almost from the time science
00:11:18.32\00:11:21.43
or what was called natural
philosophy was practiced.
00:11:21.46\00:11:25.20
Questions has arisen
about just what it does?
00:11:25.23\00:11:29.02
How it does, what it does?
00:11:29.05\00:11:31.07
And what does it tell us?
00:11:31.10\00:11:32.75
And how much of it
can we really trust?
00:11:32.78\00:11:36.37
You know, as you
know here we are,
00:11:36.40\00:11:38.18
we are in the 21st century
00:11:38.21\00:11:40.42
and we are living
with many of the great
00:11:40.45\00:11:42.55
and sometimes not so great
technological fruits of science
00:11:42.58\00:11:47.89
and the amazing thing is
00:11:47.92\00:11:50.80
these questions
still remain unanswered.
00:11:50.83\00:11:55.21
There is nil, there is
still no real consensus
00:11:55.24\00:11:58.39
about what true science is
00:11:58.42\00:12:01.12
or what the
scientific method entails
00:12:01.15\00:12:03.71
or what science really
does teach us about the world.
00:12:03.74\00:12:08.99
And I want to give
you one important example
00:12:09.02\00:12:11.50
of the limitations of
what science tells us.
00:12:11.53\00:12:15.32
A limitations that
scientist have been
00:12:15.35\00:12:17.58
aware of for centuries
that men like Francis Bacon
00:12:17.61\00:12:21.61
and Rene
Descartes and Isaac Newton
00:12:21.64\00:12:24.48
these are men from
hundreds of years ago
00:12:24.51\00:12:27.02
were aware of and to do
00:12:27.05\00:12:30.01
so I want to
talk about something
00:12:30.04\00:12:31.64
that I talked about
in an earlier lecture
00:12:31.67\00:12:34.45
but in an earlier program
we're going to whip through it.
00:12:34.48\00:12:38.42
You know, I
talked how I was raise
00:12:38.45\00:12:40.86
and educated on evolution.
00:12:40.89\00:12:43.54
Taught it my whole life,
00:12:43.57\00:12:45.25
then one day I became a
born again believer in Jesus
00:12:45.28\00:12:49.23
and almost from
the start I saw that
00:12:49.26\00:12:51.73
there was a contradiction
between what I believed.
00:12:51.76\00:12:56.98
Well, somebody gave me
some creation as literature
00:12:57.01\00:12:59.77
and as I said I didn't know
00:12:59.80\00:13:01.24
if the stuff
was any good or not.
00:13:01.27\00:13:05.12
But what happened was this,
00:13:05.15\00:13:08.11
as I read it the
scales came off my eyes
00:13:08.14\00:13:11.89
because as I said for
the first time in my life
00:13:11.92\00:13:15.88
I was open to the idea
00:13:15.91\00:13:18.08
that there was an
alternative explanation
00:13:18.11\00:13:21.69
to the facts in the ground.
00:13:21.72\00:13:23.92
As I said no
one is going to deny
00:13:23.95\00:13:25.45
the dinosaur
bones in the ground.
00:13:25.48\00:13:28.17
But for the first
time-- I was 24 years old
00:13:28.20\00:13:31.95
and for the first
time I was taught that
00:13:31.98\00:13:34.21
there was another
option to explain them
00:13:34.24\00:13:37.48
other then the Darwinian one
00:13:37.51\00:13:39.18
that I had been imbued with,
00:13:39.21\00:13:41.36
that I had been
propagandized with that.
00:13:41.39\00:13:43.48
I believe that I had
been brain washed with
00:13:43.51\00:13:46.49
since I was a child, okay.
00:13:46.52\00:13:50.06
Now remember some argue that
00:13:50.09\00:13:51.88
science does tell us
about the real world,
00:13:51.91\00:13:54.56
others argue that
either that it can tell us
00:13:54.59\00:13:57.45
only what things
do in the real world.
00:13:57.48\00:14:00.42
And if you have seen
one of the earlier shows
00:14:00.45\00:14:02.98
some tell us it can all
science can do is tell us
00:14:03.01\00:14:06.59
how the world
appears to our senses, okay.
00:14:06.62\00:14:12.22
But the one thing
00:14:12.25\00:14:13.92
but with the idea that science--
00:14:13.95\00:14:15.95
let's just go with
the idea for a minute,
00:14:15.98\00:14:18.45
that science can tell
us about the real world
00:14:18.48\00:14:22.23
and about why things
happen in the real world.
00:14:22.26\00:14:25.75
The scientific project
faces a great challenge.
00:14:25.78\00:14:30.84
It's been what has been called
00:14:30.87\00:14:32.55
the under determination
of theories by evidence.
00:14:32.58\00:14:38.92
Now, let's think
about this for a minute,
00:14:38.95\00:14:42.67
suppose I propose
a scientific theory
00:14:42.70\00:14:47.54
and I claim that if
my theory is correct
00:14:47.57\00:14:52.11
"Y" is going to turn red
for such and such reasons.
00:14:52.14\00:14:58.16
Well, what do you know?
00:14:58.19\00:15:00.15
Y turns red just
as my theory predicted
00:15:00.18\00:15:06.52
and even more impressively
00:15:06.55\00:15:08.86
suppose Y turns
red 100% of the time.
00:15:08.89\00:15:16.30
Every time I do my predict--
every time I have my theory
00:15:16.33\00:15:20.03
and I do my experiment
00:15:20.06\00:15:22.05
and I say Y is going to turn red
00:15:22.08\00:15:24.15
because of blah,
blah, blah, and Y turns red.
00:15:24.18\00:15:27.70
And that say I do
my experiment at night,
00:15:27.73\00:15:30.20
I do it in hot weather,
I do it in cold weather,
00:15:30.23\00:15:33.40
I do it in a submarine,
I do it in an airplane.
00:15:33.43\00:15:36.97
Every time I do my experiment
00:15:37.00\00:15:41.45
Y turns red 100% of the time.
00:15:41.48\00:15:47.51
Well, then what can you conclude
00:15:47.54\00:15:50.50
other than that
my theory is correct,
00:15:50.53\00:15:53.58
if predicted Y would turn red
00:15:53.61\00:15:56.02
and Y turned red every time too.
00:15:56.05\00:16:00.01
Thus what can you conclude
00:16:00.04\00:16:03.22
than other than
that my theory is right?
00:16:03.25\00:16:07.86
Right?
00:16:07.89\00:16:09.95
Well, no, not necessarily,
not necessarily at all.
00:16:09.98\00:16:16.27
In fact, white could turn red
00:16:16.30\00:16:18.74
for reasons that have
nothing to do with my theory.
00:16:18.77\00:16:23.11
Other theories,
other explanations
00:16:23.14\00:16:25.74
could make the exact
predictions that mine did.
00:16:25.77\00:16:29.95
A completely different theory
00:16:29.98\00:16:32.56
with completely
different promises,
00:16:32.59\00:16:34.95
completely different
understanding of reality
00:16:34.98\00:16:38.39
and yet it comes
up with the same thing
00:16:38.42\00:16:42.00
every time I do X, Y turns red.
00:16:42.03\00:16:48.07
In fact, you know,
you often taught well,
00:16:48.10\00:16:50.15
your science makes a prediction,
00:16:50.18\00:16:51.62
he comes up with a
theory, he makes a prediction,
00:16:51.65\00:16:53.88
the prediction turns out
right, the theory is true.
00:16:53.91\00:16:56.89
This is what some people
call the scientific method
00:16:56.92\00:17:01.23
but you know, some people argue
00:17:01.26\00:17:04.27
that correct predictions
never ever prove a theory right.
00:17:04.30\00:17:10.28
All they show is that
has yet to be falsified.
00:17:10.31\00:17:13.76
Remember if you
saw on earlier show
00:17:13.79\00:17:16.11
I talked about the
Ptolemy view of the universe.
00:17:16.14\00:17:19.71
This is the idea that
the earth sits stationary.
00:17:19.74\00:17:24.15
The center of the universe
00:17:24.18\00:17:26.02
and the planets and the stars
and everything circle there.
00:17:26.05\00:17:29.08
People believe that
for a thousand years
00:17:29.11\00:17:31.93
and yet as I said on the show
00:17:31.96\00:17:33.84
you couldn't make
accurate predictions.
00:17:33.87\00:17:36.69
You could predict what
the stars were going to do,
00:17:36.72\00:17:39.09
you could sail your ships where
you want to do and it worked.
00:17:39.12\00:17:43.71
But you know, we now
know even though it worked,
00:17:43.74\00:17:47.17
even though it made
accurate predictions
00:17:47.20\00:17:50.64
we now know the theory
was wrong, completely wrong.
00:17:50.67\00:17:55.60
The foundations of
it were completely off.
00:17:55.63\00:18:01.00
So this idea
then that just because
00:18:01.03\00:18:04.00
you can make a prediction,
00:18:04.03\00:18:06.06
you build a theory
and make predictions
00:18:06.09\00:18:09.19
and the predictions
work is no guarantee
00:18:09.22\00:18:13.55
that the theory
is successful, okay.
00:18:13.58\00:18:16.94
It might be
right, you might be right
00:18:16.97\00:18:19.58
and we might have great reasons
00:18:19.61\00:18:21.20
other than the mere
accuracy of the predictions
00:18:21.23\00:18:24.43
to believe that
the theory is right.
00:18:24.46\00:18:27.45
But to believe that its right
00:18:27.48\00:18:29.00
just because of
these predictions
00:18:29.03\00:18:31.37
is to make
what's called a varied--
00:18:31.40\00:18:33.64
to make a logical fallacy.
00:18:33.67\00:18:37.33
Let's do for a moment a
tiny little bit of former logic.
00:18:37.36\00:18:41.65
Now just listen carefully,
00:18:41.68\00:18:43.63
listen carefully to
what I'm going to say.
00:18:43.66\00:18:46.38
If we say that A is true
then B must be true as well.
00:18:46.41\00:18:52.40
It doesn't
matter what A and B are,
00:18:52.43\00:18:54.50
that's the
point of former logic.
00:18:54.53\00:18:56.26
They are not
interested in specifics.
00:18:56.29\00:18:58.51
All former logic wants to
do is deal with relationships
00:18:58.54\00:19:03.01
between specifics, that's all.
00:19:03.04\00:19:05.35
So you got A and you B
doesn't matter what they are.
00:19:05.38\00:19:09.47
So we say if A is
true then B is true okay,
00:19:09.50\00:19:14.69
and what do you know, A is true,
00:19:14.72\00:19:17.87
thus logically B
has to be true as well.
00:19:17.90\00:19:21.22
You say, if you
got A and you got B
00:19:21.25\00:19:23.70
and if A is true than B is true.
00:19:23.73\00:19:26.22
A is true
therefore B has to be true.
00:19:26.25\00:19:30.94
It's simple logic
it's called the fancy term
00:19:30.97\00:19:34.15
is modus ponens, modus ponens.
00:19:34.18\00:19:38.01
Now listen to this,
00:19:38.04\00:19:40.05
this is subtle but pick
it up because it's important.
00:19:40.08\00:19:43.71
However to say that if
A is true then B is true
00:19:43.74\00:19:50.49
and that B is true
00:19:50.52\00:19:53.87
doesn't necessarily
mean that A is true.
00:19:53.90\00:19:57.91
B can be true for reasons
that have nothing to do with A.
00:19:57.94\00:20:01.85
Let me give you an example.
00:20:01.88\00:20:03.82
If every-- if we have A
00:20:03.85\00:20:05.80
I put on my hat on
my head and B it rains.
00:20:05.83\00:20:10.36
It doesn't mean that
suddenly B if it's raining
00:20:10.39\00:20:13.76
that I have to put
my hat on my head, okay.
00:20:13.79\00:20:17.35
The rain could have
absolutely nothing to do with me
00:20:17.38\00:20:20.63
putting my hat on my head.
00:20:20.66\00:20:22.67
It's probably
have something to do
00:20:22.70\00:20:23.88
with the low pressure system
00:20:23.91\00:20:26.14
that moves into the area, okay.
00:20:26.17\00:20:30.61
And yet don't
miss this crucial point
00:20:30.64\00:20:35.08
and this point
is that almost all,
00:20:35.11\00:20:37.21
I would say all or
almost all modern science
00:20:37.24\00:20:40.99
and the practice of science
00:20:41.02\00:20:43.19
is built on this kind
of experimental prediction.
00:20:43.22\00:20:48.05
You look at something
or you do an experiment
00:20:48.08\00:20:51.29
and then you-- based
on your understanding
00:20:51.32\00:20:54.38
of what is
happening based on your theory
00:20:54.41\00:20:57.79
you make the predictions
00:20:57.82\00:20:59.57
and indeed if those
predictions come true
00:20:59.60\00:21:02.94
you claim your theory is right.
00:21:02.97\00:21:05.50
Let me give you a quick example.
00:21:05.53\00:21:07.26
I have a theory, I have a theory
00:21:07.29\00:21:11.03
that they are
invisible spiders from Mars
00:21:11.06\00:21:16.23
and these spiders from Mars
are pushing everything down.
00:21:16.26\00:21:20.31
Now I want you
to test it with me.
00:21:20.34\00:21:22.23
I want you to-- I'm
going to raise my hand
00:21:22.26\00:21:24.79
and I let my hand go
and boom it drops, okay.
00:21:24.82\00:21:28.29
Do it again. I want
to try with this hand.
00:21:28.32\00:21:30.75
You will try it at home,
00:21:30.78\00:21:32.25
you'll lift your
hand up and you let it go.
00:21:32.28\00:21:34.85
Does it fall to the ground?
00:21:34.88\00:21:37.37
Well, therefore I
just proved my theory.
00:21:37.40\00:21:40.14
Invisible spiders from Mars
are pushing everything down.
00:21:40.17\00:21:44.73
Okay, that might be
silly but that is reveals
00:21:44.76\00:21:49.86
the fundamental fallacy
of every scientific theory.
00:21:49.89\00:21:55.09
It might be right,
00:21:55.12\00:21:56.46
the theory that made the
predictions might be right
00:21:56.49\00:21:59.48
but it might not be.
00:21:59.51\00:22:01.93
Your predictions no
matter how accurate they are
00:22:01.96\00:22:05.50
might be the result of
something entirely different
00:22:05.53\00:22:08.50
from what you
propose in your theory, okay.
00:22:08.53\00:22:11.90
That's what this means there.
00:22:11.93\00:22:14.49
What this means that is that
00:22:14.52\00:22:15.75
there is always going to
be a limitation on how true
00:22:15.78\00:22:20.42
one can be in regard to
what is valid in science.
00:22:20.45\00:22:25.03
Accurate predictions
do not make a theory true.
00:22:25.06\00:22:30.30
As we saw you can make
some very accurate predictions
00:22:30.33\00:22:33.76
with a theory of the universe
00:22:33.79\00:22:35.14
that had a stationary
earth at the beginning of it.
00:22:35.17\00:22:38.46
A stationary earth with the
sun and stars moving around it.
00:22:38.49\00:22:43.69
They made accurate
predictions totally wrong theory
00:22:43.72\00:22:48.02
and this is not as
uncommon as one would think.
00:22:48.05\00:22:51.16
Some times that might
even be more of the exception
00:22:51.19\00:22:53.77
rather than the rule.
00:22:53.80\00:22:55.40
I talked to you
in an earlier program
00:22:55.43\00:22:57.76
about general
relativity and quantum theory.
00:22:57.79\00:23:01.00
Two theories that
have been proven beyond
00:23:01.03\00:23:04.01
and they make
incredibly accurate predictions,
00:23:04.04\00:23:07.03
it's amazingly
accurate predictions
00:23:07.06\00:23:09.81
and yet we saw that
00:23:09.84\00:23:11.18
they basically
contradict each other.
00:23:11.21\00:23:13.65
Scientist know
that quantum theory
00:23:13.68\00:23:15.84
as we understand it
and general relativity
00:23:15.87\00:23:18.27
as we understand
it in certain ways
00:23:18.30\00:23:20.57
and complete
contradiction to each other.
00:23:20.60\00:23:24.10
But how could that be?
00:23:24.13\00:23:25.38
They make accurate predictions.
00:23:25.41\00:23:28.08
Well, the answer is easy,
00:23:28.11\00:23:29.84
accurate predictions
doesn't necessarily mean
00:23:29.87\00:23:33.87
that a theory is true.
00:23:33.90\00:23:36.88
I talked to you also about how?
00:23:36.91\00:23:39.01
In the past you
could have theories that
00:23:39.04\00:23:40.69
they built technology on.
00:23:40.72\00:23:42.98
Technology was built on theories
00:23:43.01\00:23:45.40
that have been proven wrong.
00:23:45.43\00:23:48.28
I got this
quote from a professor
00:23:48.31\00:23:50.07
of philosophy named Dr. Goldman.
00:23:50.10\00:23:53.36
"The theories we
currently hold to be true
00:23:53.39\00:23:56.33
are as likely to be
falsified in the next 100 years
00:23:56.36\00:24:00.05
as the theories
that we look back on
00:24:00.08\00:24:02.41
as having been falsified
in the last hundred years.
00:24:02.44\00:24:07.38
Wow, that's pretty heavy.
00:24:07.41\00:24:09.71
So the theories we hold today,
00:24:09.74\00:24:11.85
theories that many ways work
00:24:11.88\00:24:14.17
could later be shown to be false
00:24:14.20\00:24:16.57
as were many
theories in the past
00:24:16.60\00:24:18.80
that were believed that worked,
00:24:18.83\00:24:21.20
that made predictions
were shown to be false.
00:24:21.23\00:24:26.85
You know, I'm not
going to do it now
00:24:26.88\00:24:30.23
but I think it would be fun.
00:24:30.26\00:24:31.78
It would be fun to
do a whole program,
00:24:31.81\00:24:34.85
do a whole program
on scientific theories
00:24:34.88\00:24:38.46
that were
believed have been true
00:24:38.49\00:24:40.71
and that they built technology
on fruitful technology
00:24:40.74\00:24:45.62
that later were
shown to be false.
00:24:45.65\00:24:48.46
But I can think for a few ideas
00:24:48.49\00:24:50.35
that were once so
believed in science
00:24:50.38\00:24:54.39
and that now had been rejected.
00:24:54.42\00:24:56.81
The existence of the
universe of an eternal universe
00:24:56.84\00:25:00.66
once a foundation
theory of science is gone,
00:25:00.69\00:25:06.39
known to be,
believed to be wrong now.
00:25:06.42\00:25:08.88
The static
nature of the universe,
00:25:08.91\00:25:11.02
the universe was once
believed to be static, gone.
00:25:11.05\00:25:15.09
The idea of absolute space,
00:25:15.12\00:25:17.67
absolute time the
two assumptions that
00:25:17.70\00:25:20.26
Newton used to create
his theory of gravity, gone.
00:25:20.29\00:25:25.59
And a big one,
00:25:25.62\00:25:26.65
the idea that
energy was continuous
00:25:26.68\00:25:29.51
that it could be divided--
infinitely divided in smaller,
00:25:29.54\00:25:33.31
smaller sections
on and on and on.
00:25:33.34\00:25:36.89
This is the
foundation of quantum theory
00:25:36.92\00:25:39.43
and it's completely gone.
00:25:39.46\00:25:41.45
If you are seeking
truth as in the truth
00:25:41.48\00:25:45.80
then science is probably going
to directly disappoint you.
00:25:45.83\00:25:50.29
On the other hand
if you want as we said,
00:25:50.32\00:25:53.31
if you are just looking
to build a better mousetrap,
00:25:53.34\00:25:56.20
if you are just looking
to build some technology
00:25:56.23\00:25:59.11
then you don't care
about these questions.
00:25:59.14\00:26:03.28
In fact, one of the
most famous philosophers
00:26:03.31\00:26:05.56
of science Karl Popper
has argued this very point.
00:26:05.59\00:26:10.34
He said we can never
prove a scientific theory true.
00:26:10.37\00:26:15.81
All we can do is
show that it is false.
00:26:15.84\00:26:20.41
We can never prove a theory true
00:26:20.44\00:26:22.93
only that it
hasn't been proven false.
00:26:22.96\00:26:25.93
What does that mean?
00:26:25.96\00:26:27.34
Well, Popper
still very influential
00:26:27.37\00:26:30.07
but he basically
to this conclusion
00:26:30.10\00:26:32.27
from the same reason
about what we are saying.
00:26:32.30\00:26:34.95
You could have all
the predictions you want,
00:26:34.98\00:26:38.36
you can make all
the proper predictions
00:26:38.39\00:26:41.39
based on your theory,
you could build weapons,
00:26:41.42\00:26:44.34
you could make money,
you can do all these things
00:26:44.37\00:26:48.04
but it doesn't make it true,
accurate predictions are cheap.
00:26:48.07\00:26:52.66
Things that-- astrology
can make accurate predictions.
00:26:52.69\00:26:56.89
And said for
Popper it doesn't matter
00:26:56.92\00:27:00.06
any real scientific theory
in principle is falsifiable.
00:27:00.09\00:27:06.47
You can never be sure something
new isn't going to come along
00:27:06.50\00:27:11.22
and totally uproot your theory
00:27:11.25\00:27:14.98
regardless of how well
of all predictions it makes.
00:27:15.01\00:27:21.21
Now the reason I
bring this up again
00:27:21.24\00:27:25.09
though this element comes in
as we've looked at is again--
00:27:25.12\00:27:28.58
it just a deal with this idea
00:27:28.61\00:27:32.21
of the certainty of
scientific knowledge.
00:27:32.24\00:27:36.86
We-- scientific
knowledge is not certain.
00:27:36.89\00:27:40.31
I mean, no knowledge
in that sense is certain.
00:27:40.34\00:27:43.22
There are
questions, there are loopholes,
00:27:43.25\00:27:46.00
there are things that you
have to take on faith on science
00:27:46.03\00:27:50.51
as you do with every thing else.
00:27:50.54\00:27:53.11
Thus science is
great, teaches us a lot
00:27:53.14\00:27:56.62
but it's not the
final orbiter of truth.
00:27:56.65\00:28:00.72