Skip to main content

Four Way Interview - Jim Al-Khalili

Photo by Nick Smith
Jim Al-Khalili hosts The Life Scientific on BBC Radio 4 and has presented numerous BBC television documentaries. He is Professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey, a New York Times bestselling author, and a fellow of the Royal Society. He is the author of numerous books, including Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed; The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance; Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology; and The World According to Physics.

His latest book is The Joy of Science.

Why joy?

 While I focus more in the book on the process of science itself to gain knowledge about the world, I also wanted to get across the fact that science is so much more than hard facts and lessons in critical thinking.  Science helps us see the world more deeply, enriches us, enlightens us.  The closer we look, the more we can see and the more we can wonder. I feel strongly that for all the remarkable technological, social and medical advances science has given us, and for all the messy, rich, complicated splendour of the scientific method we have used to gain this knowledge, there is real joy in the practice of science - in Carl Sagan's words, there is 'sense of elation and humility' in learning about the world through science.

What can the scientific method tell us about approaching evidence?

Of course when we say 'the' scientific method we must be careful to acknowledge that there are many ways of 'doing' science. But needing evidence, whether in the form of data, empirical evidence, observation, the power of prediction and deduction, or reproducibility of results and so on, it is evidence that gives us the confidence that our ideas and pictures of the world are reliable. It is encouraging that even in politics, more people are now talking about 'evidence-based' policy decisions.  However, in daily life, as I explain in the book, this is not always so easy. We cannot constantly be looking for evidence to back up our views and opinions, but holding the need for reliable evidence above mere ideological opinion  is something we should at least strive to be doing more of.

 Is there any point arguing with a science denier?

That's a tough one. In one sense, we know that many science deniers are driven not by logical enquiry and critical thinking but by ideology, whether it is politics, religion, past experience or the influence of others. But as we strive to have a more scientifically literate society capable of making informed decisions about all sorts of daily issues and challenges we cannot really shy away from engaging with such people. While I might find amusing and shrug off the views of flat-Earthers or moon landing deniers, I cannot stand by if ill-informed views on climate change or vaccines are being promoted and spread. It can be frustrating of course and not everyone has the stomach for it or feel it is their responsibility to crusade against irrational beliefs.

 Is it ever really possible to overcome our personal biases, even if we are aware of them?

Probably not. But I guess being aware of them is a crucial first step. This is what we try to do in science. Certainly in my own experience in research there have been many occasions that I have had a result, whether from a computer code or a lengthy algebraic derivation, that I 'felt' was correct or wanted to be correct. But I know that is not enough and I will try to test it to destruction, partly to persuade others that I am right but also to persuade myself. Wanting something to be true in science is not enough.  In the end, it is human nature to have biases and opinions that we feel uncomfortable having challenged or are so strongly persuaded by that we are unable to acknowledge that we might be wrong. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Infinity Machine - Sebastian Mallaby ****

It's very quickly clear that Sebastian Mallaby is a huge Demis Hassabis fan - writing about the only child prodigy and teen genius ever who was also a nice, rounded personality. After a few chapters, though, things settle down (I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' description of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ) and we get a good, solid trip through the journey that gave us DeepMind, their AlphaGo and AlphaFold programs, the sudden explosion of competition on the AI front and thoughts on artificial general intelligence. Although Mallaby does occasionally still go into fan mode - reading this you would think that AlphaFold had successfully perfectly predicted the structure of every protein, where it is usually not sufficiently accurate for its results to have direct practical application - we get a real feel for the way this relatively unusual company was swiftly and successfully developed away from Silicon Valley. It's readable and gives an important understanding of...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nanotechnology - Rahul Rao ****

There was a time when nanotechnology was both going to transform the world and wipe us out - a similar position to our view of AI today. On the positive transformation side there was K. Eric Drexler's visions in the 1986 Engines of Creation. Arguably as much science fiction as engineering possibilities, it predicted the ability to use vast armies of assemblers to put objects together from individual atoms.  On the negative side was the vision of grey goo, out of control nanotechnology consuming all in its path as it made more and more copies of itself. In 2003, for instance, the then Prince Charles made the headlines  when newspapers reported ‘The prince has raised the spectre of the “grey goo” catastrophe in which sub-microscopic machines designed to share intelligence and replicate themselves take over and devour the planet.’ These days the expectations have been eased down a notch or two. Where nanotechnology has succeeded, it has been with the likes of atom-thick mat...
Post a Comment
Read more