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

Phenomena - Camille Juzeau and the Shelf Studio ****

I am always a bit suspicious of books that are highly illustrated or claim to cover 'almost everything' - and in one sense this is clearly hyperbole. But I enjoyed Phenomena far more than I thought I would. The idea is to cover 125 topics with infographics. On the internet these tend to be long pages with lots of numbers and supposedly interesting factoids. Thankfully, here the term is used in a more eclectic fashion. Each topic gets a large (circa A4) page (a few get two) with a couple of paragraphs of text and a chunky graphic. Sometimes these do consist of many small parts - for example 'the limits of the human body' features nine graphs - three on sporting achievements, three on biometrics (e.g. height by date of birth) and three rather random items (GNP per person, agricultural yields of various crops and consumption of coal). Others have a single illustration, such as a map of the sewers of Paris. (Because, why wouldn't you want to see that?) Just those two s...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Meteorite Hunters - Joshua Howgego *****

This is an extremely engaging read on a subject that everyone is aware of, but few of us know much detail about. Usually, if I'm honest, geology tends to be one of the least entertaining scientific subjects but here (I suppose, given that geo- refers to the Earth it ought to be astrology... but that might be a touch misleading). Here, though, there is plenty of opportunity to capture our interest. The first part of the book takes us both to see meteorites and to hear stories of meteorite hunters, whose exploits vary from erudite science trips to something more like an Indiana Jones outing. Joshua Howgego takes us back to the earliest observations and discoveries of meteorites and the initial doubt that they could have extraterrestrial sources, through to explorations of deserts and the Antarctic - both locations where it tends to be easier to find them. I, certainly, had no idea about the use of camera networks to track incoming meteors, which not only try to estimate where they wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Against the Odds - John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin ****

The number of women working in STEM subjects has expanded dramatically, but as John and Mary Gribbin make clear, in the history of science this is a very recent occurrence. Here, they bring us the stories of 12 women, from Eunice Newton Foote, born in 1819, to Vera Rubin, born in 1928 - effectively covering nearly 200 years in that Rubin died as recently as 2016. There are some names that will already be familiar from popular science histories (and deservedly so). You will find, for instance, Dorothy Hodgkin and Rosalind Franklin represented. But there are plenty like Foote that few will have come across, including Inge Lehmann, Chien-Sung Wu and Lucy Slater. While arguably Foote is there primarily to demonstrate the difficulties she faced (her discovery of an aspect of greenhouse gas behaviour was independently bettered within weeks), the rest have all made significant discoveries or developments against the odds and often missed out the recognition the deserved. The most prominent ob...
Post a Comment
Read more