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 Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more