Stuart Firestein: The pursuit of ignorance

Translator: Simon Bugge Jensen Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

There is an ancient proverb that says

Der er et gammelt ordsprog der siger,

it's very difficult to find a black cat in a dark room,

at det er meget vanskeligt at se en sort kat i et mørkt rum,

especially when there is no cat.

i særdeleshed når der ikke er nogen kat.

I find this a particularly apt description of science

Jeg synes det er en god beskrivelse af videnskab

and how science works --

og hvordan videnskab fungerer -

bumbling around in a dark room, bumping into things,

man fumler rundt i et mørt rum, støder ind i ting,

trying to figure out what shape this might be,

forsøger at forstå hvilken form dette har,

what that might be,

hvad det her er,

there are reports of a cat somewhere around,

det er rapporteret, at der er en kat et sted,

they may not be reliable, they may be,

det er muligvis ikke sikkert, måske er det,

and so forth and so on.

osv.

Now I know this is different than the way most people

Jeg ved godt, at dette adskiller sig fra, hvordan de fleste mennesker

think about science.

opfatter videnskab.

Science, we generally are told,

Vi bliver normalt fortalt, at videnskab

is a very well-ordered mechanism for

er en velstruktureret mekanisme

understanding the world,

til at forstå verdenen,

for gaining facts, for gaining data,

for at opnå fakta, for at opnå data,

that it's rule-based,

at det er regel-baseret

that scientists use this thing called the scientific method

at videnskabsfolk benytter det, vi kalder videnskabelig metode

and we've been doing this for 14 generations or so now,

og vi har gjort dette i 14 generationer eller ca. deromkring,

and the scientific method is a set of rules

og den videnskabelig metode er et sæt regler til

for getting hard, cold facts out of the data.

at udvinde hårde kolde fakta fra data.

I'd like to tell you that's not the case.

Jeg vil gerne fortælle jer, at dette ikke er tilfældet.

So there's the scientific method,

Der er den videnskabelig metode,

but what's really going on is this. (Laughter)

men det der i virkeligheden foregår er dette. (Latter)

[The Scientific Method vs. Farting Around]

[Den videnskabelige metode vs. Lalle rundt]

And it's going on kind of like that.

Og det foregår nogenlunde sådan her.

[... in the dark] (Laughter)

[...i mørket] (Latter)

So what is the difference, then,

Så hvad er forskellen

between the way I believe science is pursued

mellem den måde jeg mener videnskab bliver udøvet

and the way it seems to be perceived?

og den måde den lader til at blive opfattet.

So this difference first came to me in some ways

Denne forskel gik først op for mig på nogle områder

in my dual role at Columbia University,

i min dobbeltrolle på Columbia University,

where I'm both a professor and run a laboratory in neuroscience

hvor jeg både er professor og leder et laboratorium indenfor neurovidenskab,

where we try to figure out how the brain works.

hvor vi forsøger at forstå, hvordan hjernen fungerer.

We do this by studying the sense of smell,

Vi gør det ved at undersøge lugtesansen

the sense of olfaction, and in the laboratory,

og i laboratoriet

it's a great pleasure and fascinating work

er det et glædeligt og fascinerende arbejde

and exciting to work with graduate students and post-docs

og spændende at arbejde med kandidatstuderende og post doc'er

and think up cool experiments to understand how this

og udtænke seje forsøg til at forstå,

hvordan lugtesansen fungerer og hvordan hjernen fungerer

sense of smell works and how the brain might be working,

and, well, frankly, it's kind of exhilarating.

og for at være ærlig er det meget oplivende.

But at the same time, it's my responsibility

Men på samme tid er det mit ansvar

to teach a large course to undergraduates on the brain,

at undervise et stort fag til kandidatstuderende om hjernen

og det er et stort emne,

and that's a big subject,

and it takes quite a while to organize that,

og det tager ret meget tid at organisere det

and it's quite challenging and it's quite interesting,

og det er meget udfordrende og meget interessant

but I have to say, it's not so exhilarating.

men skal jeg være ærlig, er det ikke særligt oplivende.

So what was the difference?

Så hvad er forskellen?

Well, the course I was and am teaching

Det fag jeg underviser i

is called Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience - I. (Laughs)

hedder Cellulær og Molekylær Neurovidenskab 1

It's 25 lectures full of all sorts of facts,

Det er 25 forelæsninger fyldt med alle former for fakta,

it uses this giant book called "Principles of Neural Science"

der benyttes denne gigantiske bog der hedder "Neurovidenskabens Principper"

by three famous neuroscientists.

skrevet af tre berømte neuroforskere.

This book comes in at 1,414 pages,

Bogen indeholder 1.414 sider

it weighs a hefty seven and a half pounds.

den vejer næsten fire kilo

Just to put that in some perspective,

Bare for at sætte det i perspektiv,

that's the weight of two normal human brains.

så er det den samme vægt som to normale menneskehjerner.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

So I began to realize, by the end of this course,

Så jeg begyndte at indse omkring slutningen af faget,

that the students maybe were getting the idea

at de studerende måske havde den opfattelse,

that we must know everything there is to know about the brain.

at vi ved alt, hvad der er at vide om hjernen.

That's clearly not true.

Det er helt klart ikke tilfældet.

And they must also have this idea, I suppose,

Og jeg antager de har denne ide,

that what scientists do is collect data and collect facts

at alt hvad forskere gør er at indsamle data og fakta

and stick them in these big books.

og proppe dem ind i tykke bøger.

And that's not really the case either.

Og det er egentlig heller ikke tilfældet.

When I go to a meeting, after the meeting day is over

Når jeg efter et møde

and we collect in the bar over a couple of beers with my colleagues,

mødes i baren over et par øl med mine kollegaer,

we never talk about what we know.

taler vi aldrig om, hvad vi ved.

We talk about what we don't know.

Vi taler om det, vi ikke ved.

We talk about what still has to get done,

Vi taler om, hvad der stadigvæk mangler at blive lavet,

what's so critical to get done in the lab.

hvad der er så kritisk at få lavet i laboratoriet.

Indeed, this was, I think, best said by Marie Curie

Dette blev bedst sagt af Marie Curie, mener jeg det var,

who said that one never notices what has been done

der sagde, at man ikke lægger mærke til hvad der er gjort,

but only what remains to be done.

men hvad der mangler at blive gjort.

This was in a letter to her brother after obtaining

Det stod i et brev til hendes bror efter hun opnåede

her second graduate degree, I should say.

sin anden kandidatuddannelse, skal jeg lige sige.

I have to point out this has always been one of my favorite pictures of Marie Curie,

Jeg er nødt til at pointere, at dette har altid været et af mine yndlingsbilleder af Marie Curie,

because I am convinced that that glow behind her

fordi jeg er overbevist om, at den glorie bag hende

is not a photographic effect. (Laughter)

ikke er en en fotografisk effekt. (Latter)

That's the real thing.

Det er den ægte vare.

It is true that her papers are, to this day,

Det er sandt at hendes artikler helt op til i dag

stored in a basement room in the Bibliothèque Française

er gemt i et kælderrum på Bibliothèque Française

in a concrete room that's lead-lined,

i et betonrum, der er blyforet,

and if you're a scholar and you want access to these notebooks,

og hvis du er forsker og vil have adgang til disse bøger

you have to put on a full radiation hazmat suit,

er du nødt til at iføre dig en beskyttelsesdragt,

so it's pretty scary business.

så det er heftige sager.

Nonetheless, this is what I think we were leaving out

Ikke desto mindre er det her, hvad jeg tror vi udelod

of our courses

i vores undervisning

and leaving out of the interaction that we have

og som vi som forskere udelod fra interaktionen

with the public as scientists, the what-remains-to-be-done.

med befolkningen, det er hvad-der-mangler-at-blive-gjort.

This is the stuff that's exhilarating and interesting.

Det er den slags, der er spændende og interessant.

It is, if you will, the ignorance.

Det er, om man vil, uvidenheden.

That's what was missing.

Det er det, der mangler.

So I thought, well, maybe I should teach a course

Så jeg tænkte, måske burde jeg undervise et fag

on ignorance,

om uvidenhed

something I can finally excel at, perhaps, for example.

noget jeg endelig kan excellere i.

So I did start teaching this course on ignorance,

Så jeg startede med at undervise i dette fag om uvidenhed,

and it's been quite interesting

og det har været ret interessant

and I'd like to tell you to go to the website.

og jeg vil gerne opfordre jer til at besøge hjemmesiden.

You can find all sorts of information there. It's wide open.

Her kan i finde alle mulige former for information. Det er frit tilgængeligt.

And it's been really quite an interesting time for me

Og det har virkelig været en interessant tid for mig

to meet up with other scientists who come in and talk

at mødes med andre forskere, der kommer og snakker om,

about what it is they don't know.

hvad det er, de ikke ved.

Now I use this word "ignorance," of course,

Jeg bruger ordet "uvidenhed" for selvfølgelig

to be at least in part intentionally provocative,

til en vis grad for at provokere,

because ignorance has a lot of bad connotations

fordi uvidenhed har en masse negative konnotationer

and I clearly don't mean any of those.

og jeg helt klart mener ikke nogen af disse.

So I don't mean stupidity, I don't mean a callow indifference

Så jeg mener ikke dumhed, jeg mener ikke uerfaren ligegyldighed

to fact or reason or data.

overfor fakta, rationalitet eller data.

The ignorant are clearly unenlightened, unaware,

De uvidende er tydeligvis uoplyste og uinformerede,

uninformed, and present company today excepted,

selvfølgelig med undtagelse af dem der er til stede her,

often occupy elected offices, it seems to me.

bestrider ofte magtfulde positioner, som jeg ser det.

That's another story, perhaps.

Det er måske en anden historie.

I mean a different kind of ignorance.

Jeg mener en anden form for uvidenhed.

I mean a kind of ignorance that's less pejorative,

Jeg mener en form for uvidenhed, der er mindre nedsættende,

a kind of ignorance that comes from a communal gap in our knowledge,

en form for uvidenhed, der kommer af et fælles hul i vores viden,

something that's just not there to be known

noget der bare ikke er kendt,

or isn't known well enough yet or we can't make predictions from,

eller ikke er kendt nok endnu, eller som vi ikke kan foretage forudsigelser ud fra,

the kind of ignorance that's maybe best summed up

den slags uvidenhed, der måske bedst kan opsummeres

in a statement by James Clerk Maxwell,

i et citat fra James Clerk Maxwell,

perhaps the greatest physicist between Newton and Einstein,

den måske største fysiker mellem Newton og Einstein,

who said, "Thoroughly conscious ignorance

der sagde: "Gennemført bevidst uvidenhed

is the prelude to every real advance in science."

er optakt til al markant udvikling i videnskaben"

I think it's a wonderful idea:

Jeg synes det er en fantastisk idé:

thoroughly conscious ignorance.

Gennemført bevidst uvidenhed.

So that's the kind of ignorance that I want to talk about today,

Så det er den form for uvidenhed, som jeg vil snakke om i dag,

but of course the first thing we have to clear up

men selvfølgelig den første ting vi skal have afklaret er,

is what are we going to do with all those facts?

hvad vi skal stille op med alle disse fakta?

So it is true that science piles up at an alarming rate.

Det er sandt at videnskab hober sig op i en alarmerende fart.

We all have this sense that science is this mountain of facts,

Vi har alle den opfattelse af at videnskab er et bjerg af fakta,

this accumulation model of science, as many have called it,

en akkumuleret model af forskning, som mange kalder det,

and it seems impregnable, it seems impossible.

og det virker uindtageligt, det virker umuligt.

How can you ever know all of this?

Hvordan kan man nogensinde vide alt dette?

And indeed, the scientific literature grows at an alarming rate.

Og det er er sandt, at den videnskabelige litteratur vokser i et alarmerende tempo.

In 2006, there were 1.3 million papers published.

I 2006 blev der udgivet 1,3 millioner videnskabelige artikler.

There's about a two-and-a-half-percent yearly growth rate,

Der er en ca. 2,5 % årlig vækstrate,

and so last year we saw over one and a half million papers being published.

så sidste år blev der udgivet mere end 1,5 mio. videnskabelige artikler.

Divide that by the number of minutes in a year,

Divider det med antallet af minutter på et år,

and you wind up with three new papers per minute.

og du ender med 3 nye artikler pr. minut.

So I've been up here a little over 10 minutes,

Jeg har været heroppe i lidt mere end 10 minutter,

I've already lost three papers.

jeg har dermed gået glip af tre artikler.

I have to get out of here actually. I have to go read.

Jeg bliver nødt til at gå. Jeg skal hjem og læse.

So what do we do about this? Well, the fact is

Så hvad stiller vi op overfor dette?

that what scientists do about it is a kind of a controlled neglect, if you will.

Faktum er, at det forskere gør er en form for kontrolleret forsømmelse, om man vil.

We just don't worry about it, in a way.

Vi tager os på en måde ikke af det.

The facts are important. You have to know a lot of stuff

Fakta er vigtigt. Man er nødt til at vide en hel masse

to be a scientist. That's true.

for at være forsker. Det er sandt.

But knowing a lot of stuff doesn't make you a scientist.

Men alene det at vide en hel masse, gør ikke en til forsker.

You need to know a lot of stuff to be a lawyer

Man er nødt til at vide en hel masse for at blive en advokat

or an accountant or an electrician or a carpenter.

eller en revisor eller en elektriker, eller en tømrer.

But in science, knowing a lot of stuff is not the point.

Men indenfor videnskab er det at vide en hel masse ikke pointen.

Knowing a lot of stuff is there to help you get

At vide en hel masse er til for, at man kan opnå

to more ignorance.

mere uvidenhed.

So knowledge is a big subject, but I would say

Så viden er et stort emne, men jeg vil mene

ignorance is a bigger one.

uvidenhed er et større.

So this leads us to maybe think about, a little bit

Så dette leder os til måske at tænke lidt på nogle af de modeller,

about, some of the models of science that we tend to use,

som vi har det med at anvende indenfor videnskaben,

and I'd like to disabuse you of some of them.

og jeg vil gerne fri jer fra nogle af dem.

So one of them, a popular one, is that scientists

En af dem - en populær en - er, at forskere

are patiently putting the pieces of a puzzle together

tålmodigt sætter brikkerne i et puslespil sammen

to reveal some grand scheme or another.

for at komme frem til det store billede.

This is clearly not true. For one, with puzzles,

Det er tydeligvis ikke sandt. Til at starte med, så har producenten

the manufacturer has guaranteed that there's a solution.

af puslespillet garanteret, at der er en løsning.

We don't have any such guarantee.

Vi har ikke denne garanti.

Indeed, there are many of us who aren't so sure about the manufacturer.

Mange af os er ikke engang sikker på, hvem producenten er.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

So I think the puzzle model doesn't work.

Så jeg mener ikke puslespilsmodellen virker.

Another popular model is that science is busy unraveling things

En anden populær tilgang er at videnskab har travlt med at optrævle ting

the way you unravel the peels of an onion.

på samme måde som man skræller et løg.

So peel by peel, you take away the layers of the onion

Så ved at skrælle lagene i et løg,

to get at some fundamental kernel of truth.

kommer man frem til en fundamental sandhed.

I don't think that's the way it works either.

Jeg tror heller ikke, at det fungerer på den måde.

Another one, a kind of popular one, is the iceberg idea,

En anden forestilling - en populær forestilling - er isbjerg-ideen,

that we only see the tip of the iceberg but underneath

at vi kun ser toppen af isbjerget, men under det

is where most of the iceberg is hidden.

er hvor det meste af isbjerget findes.

But all of these models are based on the idea of a large body of facts

Men alle disse forestillinger er baseret på ideen om en stor samling af fakta,

that we can somehow or another get completed.

som vi på en eller anden måde kan opnå.

We can chip away at this iceberg and figure out what it is,

Vi kan hakke i det isbjerg og forsøge at forstå, hvad det er,

or we could just wait for it to melt, I suppose, these days,

eller vi kunne i disse tider bare vente på, at det smelter,

but one way or another we could get to the whole iceberg. Right?

men på den ene eller anden måde, kan vi komme frem til hele isbjerget, ikke?

Or make it manageable. But I don't think that's the case.

Eller gøre det overskueligt. Jeg tror heller ikke, at dette er tilfældet.

I think what really happens in science

Jeg tror det videnskab virkelig handler om, er en model der

is a model more like the magic well,

mere fungerer som en magisk brønd,

where no matter how many buckets you take out,

hvor ligegyldigt hvor mange spandefulde man tager op,

there's always another bucket of water to be had,

så er der altid en ny spand vand at hente op

or my particularly favorite one,

eller min favorit,

with the effect and everything, the ripples on a pond.

som effekten af ringe i vandet.

So if you think of knowledge being this ever-expanding ripple on a pond,

Så hvis I tænker på viden som værende disse konstant udvidende ringe i vandet,

the important thing to realize is that our ignorance,

så er en vigtig ting at indse,

the circumference of this knowledge, also grows with knowledge.

at omkredsen af vores viden om vores uvidenhed også vokser, når vi opnår ny viden.

So the knowledge generates ignorance.

Så viden generer uvidenhed.

This is really well said, I thought, by George Bernard Shaw.

Dette er meget godt sagt, synes jeg, af George Bernard Shaw

This is actually part of a toast that he delivered

Det er faktisk en del af en tale han holdt for at

to celebrate Einstein at a dinner celebrating Einstein's work,

hylde Einstein, ved en middag der hyldede Einsteins arbejde,

in which he claims that science

hvor han siger at at videnskab

just creates more questions than it answers. ["Science is always wrong. It never solves a problem without creating 10 more."]

skaber flere spørgsmål end svar. ["Videnskab er altid forkert. Det løser aldrig et problem uden at skabe 10 nye"]

I find that kind of glorious, and I think he's precisely right,

Jeg synes det er et herligt citat og jeg synes han har helt ret,

plus it's a kind of job security.

desuden skaber det en form for jobsikkerhed.

As it turns out, he kind of cribbed that

Det viser sig, at han kopierede det

from the philosopher Immanuel Kant

fra filosoffen Immanuel Kant

who a hundred years earlier had come up with this idea

der hundrede år tidligere var kommet frem til den ide

of question propagation, that every answer begets more questions.

om spørgsmålsformering, at ethvert svar skaber flere spørgsmål.

I love that term, "question propagation,"

Jeg elsker det udtryk, "spørgsmålsformering",

this idea of questions propagating out there.

den idé om at spørgsmål formerer sig

So I'd say the model we want to take is not

Så forståelsen af videnskab som vi ønsker er ikke

that we start out kind of ignorant and we get some facts together

at vi starter med at være uvidende, samler så nogle fakta sammen

and then we gain knowledge.

og så opnår vi viden.

It's rather kind of the other way around, really.

Det er på en måde den anden vej rundt.

What do we use this knowledge for?

Hvad bruger vi denne viden til?

What are we using this collection of facts for?

Hvad benytter vi indsamlingen af fakta til ?

We're using it to make better ignorance,

Vi bruger det til at skabe bedre uvidenhed,

to come up with, if you will, higher-quality ignorance.

til at komme frem til, om man vil, højkvalitets uvidenhed.

Because, you know, there's low-quality ignorance

Fordi som I ved, så er der lavkvalitets uvidenhed

and there's high-quality ignorance. It's not all the same.

og der er højkvalitets uvidenhed. Det er ikke alt sammen det samme.

Scientists argue about this all the time.

Forskere diskuterer dette konstant.

Sometimes we call them bull sessions.

Nogle gange kalder vi det uformelle diskussioner.

Sometimes we call them grant proposals.

Andre gange kalder vi det ansøgninger om tilskud.

But nonetheless, it's what the argument is about.

Ikke desto mindre så er det, hvad diskussionen handler om.

It's the ignorance. It's the what we don't know.

Det er uvidenhed. Det er om hvad vi ikke ved.

It's what makes a good question.

Det er det, der giver et godt spørgsmål.

So how do we think about these questions?

Så hvordan tænker vi om disse spørgsmål.

I'm going to show you a graph that shows up

Jeg vil vise jer en graf, der viser sig

quite a bit on happy hour posters in various science departments.

ret ofte på plakater i forskellige videnskabsafdelinger

This graph asks the relationship between what you know

Grafen viser forholdet mellem, hvad man ved

and how much you know about it.

og hvor meget man ved om det.

So what you know, you can know anywhere from nothing to everything, of course,

Så hvad man ved, man kan vide fra ingenting til alting selvsagt

and how much you know about it can be anywhere

og hvor meget man ved om det,

from a little to a lot.

kan rangere fra lidt til meget.

So let's put a point on the graph. There's an undergraduate.

Så lad os sætte et punkt på grafen. Her er en studerende.

Doesn't know much but they have a lot of interest.

De ved ikke meget, men de er interesserede i næsten alt.

They're interested in almost everything.

De er interesserede i nærmest alt.

Now you look at a master's student, a little further along in their education,

Her ser I en kandidat-studerende, et stykke længere i deres uddannelse,

and you see they know a bit more,

og som I ser, så ved de en del mere,

but it's been narrowed somewhat.

men det er blevet mere indsnævret.

And finally you get your Ph.D., where it turns out

Og endeligt får man sin Ph.D., hvor det viser sig,

you know a tremendous amount about almost nothing. (Laughter)

at man ved en fantastisk masse om stort set ingenting. (Latter)

What's really disturbing is the trend line that goes through that

Hvad der er virkelig foruroligende er den trendlinie, der går gennem den,

because, of course, when it dips below the zero axis, there,

fordi når den ryger under 0-aksen, der,

it gets into a negative area.

går den ind i et negativt område.

That's where you find people like me, I'm afraid.

Det er her I finder personer som mig, er jeg bange for.

So the important thing here is that this can all be changed.

Det vigtige her er, at alt dette kan forandres.

This whole view can be changed

Hele dette syn på det kan forandres

by just changing the label on the x-axis.

ved blot at ændre navnet på x-aksen.

So instead of how much you know about it,

Så i stedet for hvor meget vi om det,

we could say, "What can you ask about it?"

kunne vi sige, "Hvad kan man spørge om det?

So yes, you do need to know a lot of stuff as a scientist,

Så ja, man er nødt til at vide en hel masse som forsker,

but the purpose of knowing a lot of stuff

men formålet med at vide en hel masse

is not just to know a lot of stuff. That just makes you a geek, right?

er ikke kun at vide en hel masse. Det gør bare en til en nørd, ikke?

Knowing a lot of stuff, the purpose is

Formået med at vide en hel masse er

to be able to ask lots of questions,

at være i stand til at stille mange spørgsmål

to be able to frame thoughtful, interesting questions,

at være i stand til at danne tankevækkende og interessante spørgsmål,

because that's where the real work is.

fordi det er der, det virkelige arbejde ligger.

Let me give you a quick idea of a couple of these sorts of questions.

Lad mig give jer en lille ide om, hvad denne type spørgsmål kunne være.

I'm a neuroscientist, so how would we come up

Jeg er en hjerneforsker, så hvordan kan vi komme frem til

with a question in neuroscience?

et spørgsmål om hjerneforskning?

Because it's not always quite so straightforward.

Fordi det er ikke altid så lige til.

So, for example, we could say, well what is it that the brain does?

Så f.eks. kunne vi spørge, hvad er det hjernen gør?

Well, one thing the brain does, it moves us around.

En ting den gør er, at den bevæger os rundt.

We walk around on two legs.

Vi går på rundt på to ben.

That seems kind of simple, somehow or another.

Det virker simpelt nok.

I mean, virtually everybody over 10 months of age

Jeg mener, nærmest alle der er mere end 10 måneder gamle

walks around on two legs, right?

går rundt på to ben, ikke ?

So that maybe is not that interesting.

Så det er måske ikke så interessant.

So instead maybe we want to choose something a little more complicated to look at.

Så i stedet for, vil vi måske vælge noget lidt mere kompliceret at undersøge.

How about the visual system?

Hvad med det visuelle system?

There it is, the visual system.

Her er det, det visuelle system.

I mean, we love our visual systems. We do all kinds of cool stuff.

Jeg mener, vi elsker vores visuelle system. Vi foretager os alle mulige seje ting.

Indeed, there are over 12,000 neuroscientists

Der er over 12.000 neuroforskere,

who work on the visual system,

der arbejder med det visuelle system,

from the retina to the visual cortex,

fra retina til det visuelle kortex,

in an attempt to understand not just the visual system

i et forsøg på at forstå ikke bare det visuelle system,

but to also understand how general principles

men også for at forstå generelle principper om,

of how the brain might work.

hvordan hjernen arbejder.

But now here's the thing:

Men sagen er dog:

Our technology has actually been pretty good

Vores teknologi har faktisk været ret god

at replicating what the visual system does.

til at kopiere, hvad det visuelle system gør.

We have TV, we have movies,

Vi har TV, vi har film

we have animation, we have photography,

vi har animation, vi har fotografier,

we have pattern recognition, all of these sorts of things.

vi har genkendelse af mønstre, alle den slags ting.

They work differently than our visual systems in some cases,

De fungerer anderledes end vores visuelle system i visse tilfælde,

but nonetheless we've been pretty good at

men ikke desto mindre har vi været ret gode til at

making a technology work like our visual system.

få en teknologi til at fungere som vores visuelle system.

Somehow or another, a hundred years of robotics,

På en eller anden måde, selv ikke efter 100 år med robot-teknologi

you never saw a robot walk on two legs,

har man set en robot gå på to ben,

because robots don't walk on two legs

fordi robotter går ikke på to ben,

because it's not such an easy thing to do.

fordi det er ikke nogen nem ting at gøre.

A hundred years of robotics,

Hundrede år med robotter

and we can't get a robot that can move more than a couple steps one way or the other.

og vi kan stadig ikke få robotter til at gå mere end et par skridt på den ene eller anden måde.

You ask them to go up an inclined plane, and they fall over.

Hvis man beder dem om at gå op ad en stigende overflade og de vil falde.

Turn around, and they fall over. It's a serious problem.

Vend dem rundt og de vil falde. Det er et seriøst problem.

So what is it that's the most difficult thing for a brain to do?

Så hvad er det, der er den sværeste ting at udføre for hjernen?

What ought we to be studying?

Hvad burde vi undersøge?

Perhaps it ought to be walking on two legs, or the motor system.

Måske burde det være et at gå på to ben, eller det motoriske system.

I'll give you an example from my own lab,

Jeg vil give jer et eksempel fra min egen forskning,

my own particularly smelly question,

min eget særligt lugtende spørgsmål,

since we work on the sense of smell.

eftersom vi har arbejdet en del med lugtesansen.

But here's a diagram of five molecules

Her er et diagram over fem molekyler

and sort of a chemical notation.

og en form for kemisk betegnelse.

These are just plain old molecules, but if you sniff those molecules

Dette er helt almindelige molekyler, men hvis man lugter til disse molekyler

up these two little holes in the front of your face,

gennem de to små huller i jeres ansigt,

you will have in your mind the distinct impression of a rose.

vil man i sin bevidsthed have det særlige indtryk af en rose.

If there's a real rose there, those molecules will be the ones,

Hvis der var en ægte rose her, så ville disse molekyler være der,

but even if there's no rose there,

men selvom der ikke er nogen rose her,

you'll have the memory of a molecule.

så vil man have hukommelsen af en rose.

How do we turn molecules into perceptions?

Hvordan omsætter vi molekyler til opfattelser?

What's the process by which that could happen?

Hvad er den proces, der gør, at dette kan ske?

Here's another example: two very simple molecules, again in this kind of chemical notation.

Her er et andet eksempel: to meget simple molekyler, igen med denne kemiske betegnelse.

It might be easier to visualize them this way,

Det er muligvis nemmere at visualisere dem på den måde,

so the gray circles are carbon atoms, the white ones

de grå cirkler er kul-atomer, de hvide

are hydrogen atoms and the red ones are oxygen atoms.

er brint-atomer og de røde er ilt-atomer.

Now these two molecules differ by only one carbon atom

Disse to molekyler adskiller sig med kun et enkelt kul-atom

and two little hydrogen atoms that ride along with it,

og to små brint-atomer, der er tilknyttet det.

and yet one of them, heptyl acetate,

Og alligevel har den ene, heptylacetat,

has the distinct odor of a pear,

den særlige duft af pære

and hexyl acetate is unmistakably banana.

og hexylacetat er den umiskendelige duft af banan.

So there are two really interesting questions here, it seems to me.

For mig at se er der to meget interessante spørgsmål her.

One is, how can a simple little molecule like that

Det første er, hvordan kan et simpelt lille molekyle som dette

create a perception in your brain that's so clear

skabe en opfattelse i ens hjerne, der så tydeligt

as a pear or a banana?

er en pære eller en banan?

And secondly, how the hell can we tell the difference

Og for det andet, hvordan helvede kan vi kende forskel

between two molecules that differ by a single carbon atom?

mellem de to molekyler, der adskiller sig ved bare et enkelt kulstof-atom?

I mean, that's remarkable to me,

For mig er det bemærkelsesværdigt,

clearly the best chemical detector on the face of the planet.

det er afgjort den bedste kemiske detektor på denne jord.

And you don't even think about it, do you?

Og man tænker ikke engang over det, vel?

So this is a favorite quote of mine that takes us

Det her et af min yndlingscitater, der tager os

back to the ignorance and the idea of questions.

tilbage til uvidenhed og ideen med spørgsmål.

I like to quote because I think dead people

Jeg kan godt lide at citere, fordi jeg synes ikke døde mennesker,

shouldn't be excluded from the conversation.

bør ekskluderes fra debatten.

And I also think it's important to realize that

Og jeg synes det er vigtigt at indse,

the conversation's been going on for a while, by the way.

at debatten i øvrigt har foregået i et stykke tid.

So Erwin Schrodinger, a great quantum physicist

Så Erwin Schrodinger, en stor kvantefysiker og,

and, I think, philosopher, points out how you have to

tror jeg filosof, pointerer hvordan man er nødt til at

"abide by ignorance for an indefinite period" of time.

"acceptere uvidenhed på ubestemt tid"

And it's this abiding by ignorance

Og det er denne accept af uvidenhed

that I think we have to learn how to do.

som jeg tror vi er nødt til at lære, hvordan man anvender.

This is a tricky thing. This is not such an easy business.

Det er en svær ting. Det er ikke noget nemt forehavende.

I guess it comes down to our education system,

Jeg tror det handler om vores uddannelsessystem,

so I'm going to talk a little bit about ignorance and education,

så jeg vil tale en smule om om uvidenhed og uddannelse,

because I think that's where it really has to play out.

fordi jeg tror det er der, kampen skal tages.

So for one, let's face it,

Lad os indse det en gang for alle,

in the age of Google and Wikipedia,

i en tid med Google og Wikipedia

the business model of the university

bliver forretningsmodellen for universiteter,

and probably secondary schools is simply going to have to change.

og formentlig også gymnasier, ganske enkelt nødt til at forandres.

We just can't sell facts for a living anymore.

Vi kan ikke leve af at sælge fakta længere.

They're available with a click of the mouse,

De er tilgængelige med et tryk på musen,

or if you want to, you could probably just ask the wall

eller hvis du vil, kunne du formentlig snart bare spørge væggen,

one of these days, wherever they're going to hide the things

eller hvor de nu har tænkt sig opbevare den slags,

that tell us all this stuff.

der kan fortælle os alt muligt.

So what do we have to do? We have to give our students

Så hvad er vi nødt til at gøre? Vi er nødt til at give vores studenter

a taste for the boundaries, for what's outside that circumference,

en fornemmelse for grænserne, for hvad der ligger uden for periferien,

for what's outside the facts, what's just beyond the facts.

for hvad der er udenfor fakta, hvad der går forud for fakta.

How do we do that?

Hvordan gør vi det?

Well, one of the problems, of course,

Et af problemerne er selvfølgelig

turns out to be testing.

hvordan vi tester eleverne.

We currently have an educational system

Vi har lige nu et uddannelsessystem,

which is very efficient but is very efficient at a rather bad thing.

der er meget effektivt, men som er meget effektivt til en meget dårlig ting.

So in second grade, all the kids are interested in science,

I 2. klasse er alle børn interesserede i videnskab,

the girls and the boys.

både drengene og pigerne.

They like to take stuff apart. They have great curiosity.

De kan lide at skille ting ad. De har en stor nysgerrighed.

They like to investigate things. They go to science museums.

De kan lide at undersøge ting. De tager til videnskabsudstillinger.

They like to play around. They're in second grade.

De kan lide at lege med tingene. De går i 2. klasse.

They're interested.

De er interesserede.

But by 11th or 12th grade, fewer than 10 percent

Men ved 11. eller 12. klassetrin er færre end 10 procent af dem

of them have any interest in science whatsoever,

interesserede i nogen som helst former for videnskab,

let alone a desire to go into science as a career.

for slet ikke at tale om få en karriere indenfor videnskab.

So we have this remarkably efficient system

Så vi har et bemærkelsesværdigt effektivt system

for beating any interest in science out of everybody's head.

til at slå enhver interesse for videnskab ud af alles hoveder.

Is this what we want?

Er dette hvad vi ønsker?

I think this comes from what a teacher colleague of mine

jeg tror dette stammer fra det en af mine undervisningskollegaer

calls "the bulimic method of education."

kalder "den bullimiske undervisningsmetode".

You know. You can imagine what it is.

I kan forestille jer, hvad det er.

We just jam a whole bunch of facts down their throats over here

Vi stopper bare en hel masse fakta ned i halsen

and then they puke it up on an exam over here

og så kaster de det op til eksamen.

and everybody goes home with no added intellectual heft whatsoever.

og alle ender uden at have fået tilført nogen som helst form for intellektuel tyngde.

This can't possibly continue to go on.

Dette kan umuligt fortsætte.

So what do we do? Well the geneticists, I have to say,

Så hvad gør vi? Genforskerne

have an interesting maxim they live by.

har en interessant leveregel, som de følger.

Geneticists always say, you always get what you screen for.

Genforskere siger altid, man altid får hvad man søger efter.

And that's meant as a warning.

Og det er ment som en advarsel.

So we always will get what we screen for,

Så vi får altid, hvad vi søger efter,

and part of what we screen for is in our testing methods.

og dele af det vi søger efter ligger i vores testmetoder.

Well, we hear a lot about testing and evaluation,

Vi hører en del om tests og evaluering

and we have to think carefully when we're testing

og vi er nødt til at tænke nøje over, når vi laver tests,

whether we're evaluating or whether we're weeding,

om vi evaluerer eller om vi luger ud,

whether we're weeding people out,

om vi luger ud blandt folk,

whether we're making some cut.

om vi foretager et snit.

Evaluation is one thing. You hear a lot about evaluation

Evaluering er en ting. Man hører en masse om evaluering

in the literature these days, in the educational literature,

i litteraturen nu til dags, i uddannelses-litteraturen

but evaluation really amounts to feedback and it amounts

men evaluering handler om feedback, der igen handler om

to an opportunity for trial and error.

en mulighed for "trial and error"

It amounts to a chance to work over a longer period of time

Det handler om muligheden for at arbejde over en længere periode

with this kind of feedback.

med denne form for feedback.

That's different than weeding, and usually, I have to tell you,

Det adskiller sig fra at luge ud, og normalt, skal jeg sige jer,

when people talk about evaluation, evaluating students,

at når folk taler om evaluering, evaluering af elever,

evaluating teachers, evaluating schools,

evaluering af lærere, evaluering af skoler,

evaluating programs, that they're really talking about weeding.

evaluering af uddannelser, at de i virkeligheden taler om at luge ud.

And that's a bad thing, because then you will get what you select for,

Og det er en skidt ting, fordi så vil man få, det man udvælger,

which is what we've gotten so far.

hvilket er det, som vi har fået hidtil.

So I'd say what we need is a test that says, "What is x?"

Så jeg mener, at det vi mangler er en test der spørger, "Hvad er x?"

and the answers are "I don't know, because no one does,"

og svarene er "jeg ved det ikke, fordi ingen ved det."

or "What's the question?" Even better.

eller endnu bedre "Hvad er spørgsmålet?"

Or, "You know what, I'll look it up, I'll ask someone,

Eller, "Ved du hvad, jeg slår det op, jeg spørger en,

I'll phone someone. I'll find out."

jeg ringer til en. Jeg finder ud af det."

Because that's what we want people to do,

Fordi det er det, vi vil have folk til at gøre

and that's how you evaluate them.

og det er sådan, man evaluerer dem.

And maybe for the advanced placement classes,

Eller måske for de højere uddannelser kunne det være:

it could be, "Here's the answer. What's the next question?"

"Her er svaret. Hvad er det næste spørgsmål?"

That's the one I like in particular.

Det kan jeg særligt godt lide.

So let me end with a quote from William Butler Yeats,

Så lad mig slutte med et citat fra William Butler Yeats,

who said "Education is not about filling buckets;

der sagde at "Uddannelse handler ikke om at fylde spande;

it is lighting fires."

det handler om at tænde ild."

So I'd say, let's get out the matches.

Så jeg siger, lad os få gang i tændstikkerne.

Thank you.

Tak skal I have.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

Tak (Bifald)

Thank you. (Applause)