Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists

Prevoditelj: Senzos Osijek Recezent: Ivan Stamenković

Every day we face issues like climate change

Svakodnevno smo suočeni s problemima kao što su klimatske promjene

or the safety of vaccines

ili sigurnosti cjepiva

where we have to answer questions whose answers

gdje moramo odgovoriti na pitanja čiji se odgovori

rely heavily on scientific information.

oslanjaju na znanstvene informacije.

Scientists tell us that the world is warming.

Znanstvenici govore o globalnom zatopljenju.

Scientists tell us that vaccines are safe.

Govore nam da su cjepiva sigurna.

But how do we know if they are right?

Kako znati da su oni u pravu?

Why should be believe the science?

Zašto bi trebali vjerovati znanosti?

The fact is, many of us actually don't believe the science.

Činjenica je da mnogi od nas ne vjeruju u znanost.

Public opinion polls consistently show

Istraživanja javnog mišljenja pokazuju da

that significant proportions of the American people

velika većina američke popoulacije

don't believe the climate is warming due to human activities,

ne vjeruje da se klima mijenja zbog ljudskih aktivnosti.

don't think that there is evolution by natural selection,

ne misle da postoji evolucija prirodnom selekcijom,

and aren't persuaded by the safety of vaccines.

i nisu uvjereni u sigurnost cjepiva.

So why should we believe the science?

Zašto bismo vjerovali znanosti?

Well, scientists don't like talking about science as a matter of belief.

Znanstvenici ne vole govoriti o znanosti kao predmetu vjerovanja.

In fact, they would contrast science with faith,

Oni bi suprostavili znanost i vjeru

and they would say belief is the domain of faith.

smatrajući da je vjerovanje domena vjere.

And faith is a separate thing apart and distinct from science.

Vjera je zasebna stvar i različita od znanosti.

Indeed they would say religion is based on faith

Doduše religija je zasnovana na vjerovanju

or maybe the calculus of Pascal's wager.

ili možda ishodu Paskalove oklade.

Blaise Pascal was a 17th-century mathematician

Blaise Pascal bio je matematičar sedamnaestoga stoljeća

who tried to bring scientific reasoning to the question of

koji je pokušao dati znanstveno objašnjenje na pitanje

whether or not he should believe in God,

trebamo li vjerovati u Boga

and his wager went like this:

te njegova oklada glasi ovako:

Well, if God doesn't exist

Ako Bog ne postoji,

but I decide to believe in him

ali odlučim vjerovati u njega

nothing much is really lost.

neću izgubiti mnogo.

Maybe a few hours on Sunday.

Možda par sati nedjeljom.

(Laughter)

(Smijeh)

But if he does exist and I don't believe in him,

Ali ako On postoji i ja ne vjerujem u njega,

then I'm in deep trouble.

onda sam u nevolji.

And so Pascal said, we'd better believe in God.

Pascal je zaključio da je bolje da vjerujemo u Boga.

Or as one of my college professors said,

Ili kako je jedan od mojih kolega profesora rekao,

"He clutched for the handrail of faith."

"Zgrabio se za ogradu vjere."

He made that leap of faith

Napravio je iskorak u vjeri

leaving science and rationalism behind.

ostavljajući znanost i racionalizam iza sebe.

Now the fact is though, for most of us,

Činjenica je za mnoge od nas

most scientific claims are a leap of faith.

da su mnoge znanstvene tvrdnje iskorak u vjeri.

We can't really judge scientific claims for ourselves in most cases.

Ne možemo sami prosuditi znanstvene tvrdnje u većini slučajeva.

And indeed this is actually true for most scientists as well

Ovo također vrijedi za većinu znanstvenika

outside of their own specialties.

izvan okvira njihovih specijalnosti.

So if you think about it, a geologist can't tell you

Ako bolje razmislimo, geolog nam ne može reći

whether a vaccine is safe.

je li cijepljenje sigurno.

Most chemists are not experts in evolutionary theory.

Većina kemičara nije stručna u teoriji evolucije.

A physicist cannot tell you,

Fizičar vam ne može reći,

despite the claims of some of them,

unatoč tvrdnjama nekih

whether or not tobacco causes cancer.

uzrokuje li pušenje rak.

So, if even scientists themselves

Ako i sami znanstvenici

have to make a leap of faith

moraju imati vjere

outside their own fields,

izvan vlastitih područja

then why do they accept the claims of other scientists?

zašto onda prihvaćaju tvrdnje drugih znanstvenika?

Why do they believe each other's claims?

Zašto vjeruju tvrdnjama jedni drugih?

And should we believe those claims?

Trebamo li vjerovati tim tvrdnjama?

So what I'd like to argue is yes, we should,

Željela bih raspraviti o tome da trebamo vjerovati

but not for the reason that most of us think.

ali ne iz razloga što većina od nas misli.

Most of us were taught in school that the reason we should

Većina je u školi učila da su razlog zašto bismo trebali

believe in science is because of the scientific method.

vjerovati u znanost - znanstvene metode.

We were taught that scientists follow a method

Učili su nas da se znanstvenici drže metoda

and that this method guarantees

i da one jamče

the truth of their claims.

istinitost njihovih tvrdnji.

The method that most of us were taught in school,

Metoda koju je većina naučila u školi

we can call it the textbook method,

zvat ćemo ju udžbenička metoda,

is the hypothetical deductive method.

hipotetska deduktivna metoda.

According to the standard model, the textbook model,

Prema standardnom modelu, iz udžbenika,

scientists develop hypotheses, they deduce

znanstvenici razvijaju hipotezu, zaključuju

the consequences of those hypotheses,

posljedice tih hipoteza

and then they go out into the world and they say,

i zatim ih predstavljaju svijetu govoreći:

"Okay, well are those consequences true?"

„Jesu li ovi zaključci istiniti?“

Can we observe them taking place in the natural world?

Možemo li ih promatrati u sklopu stvarnog svijeta?

And if they are true, then the scientists say,

Ako su istinite, znanstvenici će reći:

"Great, we know the hypothesis is correct."

„Odlično, znamo da je hipoteza točna.“

So there are many famous examples in the history

Postoje mnogi poznati primjeri u povijesti znanosti

of science of scientists doing exactly this.

o znanstvenicima koji su napravili upravo to.

One of the most famous examples

Jedan od najpoznatijih primjera

comes from the work of Albert Einstein.

dolazi iz rada Alberta Einsteina.

When Einstein developed the theory of general relativity,

Kada je Einstein formulirao opću teoriju relativnosti

one of the consequences of his theory

jedan od zaključaka njegove teorije

was that space-time wasn't just an empty void

bio je da prostor-vrijeme nisu samo praznina

but that it actually had a fabric.

već sadrži materiju.

And that that fabric was bent

Ova je materija zakrivljena

in the presence of massive objects like the sun.

u prisutnosti tijela velike mase kao što je Sunce.

So if this theory were true then it meant that light

Ako je ova teorija istinita to bi značilo da svijetlost

as it passed the sun

kako putuje od Sunca

should actually be bent around it.

bi trebala biti zakrivljena oko Sunca.

That was a pretty startling prediction

To je bila zapanjujuća teorija

and it took a few years before scientists

i trebalo je nekoliko godina da znanstvenici

were able to test it

budu u mogućnosti testirati ju,

but they did test it in 1919,

učinili su to 1919.,

and lo and behold it turned out to be true.

te se ispostavila istinitom.

Starlight actually does bend as it travels around the sun.

Zvjezdana svjetlost zavija kako putuje oko Sunca.

This was a huge confirmation of the theory.

To je bila velika potvrda teoriji.

It was considered proof of the truth

Smatrala se dokazom za istinitost

of this radical new idea,

te radikalne nove ideje,

and it was written up in many newspapers

i izašla je u mnogim novinama

around the globe.

u cijelom svijetu.

Now, sometimes this theory or this model

Ponekad se ova teorija ili ovaj model

is referred to as the deductive-nomological model,

nazivaju deduktivno-nomologični model,

mainly because academics like to make things complicated.

ponajprije zato što znanstvenici vole komplicirati stvari.

But also because in the ideal case, it's about laws.

Ali i zato što je u idealnom slučaju riječ o zakonu.

So nomological means having to do with laws.

Nomologičan znači imati veze sa zakonom.

And in the ideal case, the hypothesis isn't just an idea:

U idealnom slučaju, hipoteza nije samo ideja

ideally, it is a law of nature.

nego i prirodni zakon.

Why does it matter that it is a law of nature?

Zašto je bitno da je prirodni zakon?

Because if it is a law, it can't be broken.

Jer ako je zakon, ne smije biti prekršen.

If it's a law then it will always be true

Ako je zakon onda je uvijek istinit.

in all times and all places

u svako doba i na svakom mjestu

no matter what the circumstances are.

bez obzira na okolnosti.

And all of you know of at least one example of a famous law:

Svi znate barem jedan primjer poznatog zakona:

Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2,

Einsteinovu slavnu jednadžbu E=MC2,

which tells us what the relationship is

koja nam pokazuje vezu

between energy and mass.

između energije i mase.

And that relationship is true no matter what.

A ta je veza istinita u svakom slučaju.

Now, it turns out, though, that there are several problems with this model.

Ispostavilo se da postoji nekoliko problema kod ovog modela.

The main problem is that it's wrong.

Glavni problem je da je netočna.

It's just not true. (Laughter)

Jednostavno nije istinita. (Smijeh)

And I'm going to talk about three reasons why it's wrong.

A ja ću ispričati tri razloga zašto je netočna.

So the first reason is a logical reason.

Prvi je razlog logičan.

It's the problem of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Problem je u pogrešci potvrđivanja posljedičnog.

So that's another fancy, academic way of saying

To je maštoviti način, akademski način da se kaže

that false theories can make true predictions.

kako pogrešna teorija može imati istinita predviđanja.

So just because the prediction comes true

Samo zato što se predviđanje obistinilo

doesn't actually logically prove that the theory is correct.

ne znači da logično dokazuje ispravnost teorije.

And I have a good example of that too, again from the history of science.

Imam za to dobar primjer, ponovno iz povijesti znanosti.

This is a picture of the Ptolemaic universe

Ovo je slika Ptolemejevog sustava

with the Earth at the center of the universe

sa Zemljom u središtu svemira

and the sun and the planets going around it.

te Suncem i planetima koji se gibaju oko nje.

The Ptolemaic model was believed

U Ptolomejev su sustav vjerovali

by many very smart people for many centuries.

mnogi učeni ljudi kroz stoljeća.

Well, why?

Zašto?

Well the answer is because it made lots of predictions that came true.

Odgovor je zato što je imao mnoga predviđanja koja su se obistinila.

The Ptolemaic system enabled astronomers

Ptolemejev sustav omogućio je astronomima

to make accurate predictions of the motions of the planet,

da naprave točna predviđanja o gibanjima planeta,

in fact more accurate predictions at first

isprva mnogo točnija predviđanja

than the Copernican theory which we now would say is true.

od Kopernikove teorije koju danas smatramo istinitom.

So that's one problem with the textbook model.

To je jedan od problema udžbeničkog modela.

A second problem is a practical problem,

Drugi problem je praktične prirode,

and it's the problem of auxiliary hypotheses.

a to su pomoćne hipoteze.

Auxiliary hypotheses are assumptions

Pomoćne su hipoteze pretpostavke

that scientists are making

koje znanstvenici stvaraju

that they may or may not even be aware that they're making.

a da ih jesu ili nisu pri tom svjesni.

So an important example of this

Jedan važan primjer ovoga

comes from the Copernican model,

Kopernikov je model

which ultimately replaced the Ptolemaic system.

koji je u konačnici zamijenio Ptolomejev sustav.

So when Nicolaus Copernicus said,

Kada je Nikola Kopernik tvrdio,

actually the Earth is not the center of the universe,

da Zemlja nije u središtu Svemira,

the sun is the center of the solar system,

nego je Sunce u središtu Sunčeva sustava,

the Earth moves around the sun.

a Zemlja kruži oko Sunca.

Scientists said, well okay, Nicolaus, if that's true

Znanstvenici su smatrali da ako je to istina

we ought to be able to detect the motion

trebali bismo moći otkriti gibanje

of the Earth around the sun.

Zemlje oko Sunca.

And so this slide here illustrates a concept

Ovaj slajd ovdje prikazuje koncept

known as stellar parallax.

poznat kao zvjezdana paralaksa.

And astronomers said, if the Earth is moving

Znanstvenici su smatrali da ako se Zemlja giba

and we look at a prominent star, let's say, Sirius --

a mi promatramo istaknutu zvijezdu, recimo, Sirius -

well I know I'm in Manhattan so you guys can't see the stars,

ja sam s Manhattana pa ne vidim zvijezde

but imagine you're out in the country, imagine you chose that rural life —

ail zamislite da ste na selu da ste izabrali seoski život-

and we look at a star in December, we see that star

promatrate zvijezdu u prosincu te ju vidimo

against the backdrop of distant stars.

naspram udaljenijih zvijezda u pozadini.

If we now make the same observation six months later

Ako napravimo isto opažanje šest mjeseci poslije

when the Earth has moved to this position in June,

kada se Zemlja pomaknula u ovaj položaj u lipnju

we look at that same star and we see it against a different backdrop.

promatramo tu istu zvijezdu ali naspram drukčije pozadine.

That difference, that angular difference, is the stellar parallax.

Ova kutna razlika naziva se zvjezdana paralaksa.

So this is a prediction that the Copernican model makes.

I to je predviđanje nastalo na osnovi Kopernikova modela.

Astronomers looked for the stellar parallax

Astronomi u potrazi za zvjezdanom paralaksom

and they found nothing, nothing at all.

nisu pronašli ama baš ništa.

And many people argued that this proved that the Copernican model was false.

Mnogi su ljudi tvrdili da ovo dokazuje da je Kopernikov model netočan.

So what happened?

Pa što se dogodilo?

Well, in hindsight we can say that astronomers were making

Gledajući unatrag možemo reći da su astronomi stvarali

two auxiliary hypotheses, both of which

dvije pomoćne hipoteze, od kojih obje

we would now say were incorrect.

danas smatramo netočnima.

The first was an assumption about the size of the Earth's orbit.

Prva je bila pretpostavka o veličini Zemljine orbite.

Astronomers were assuming that the Earth's orbit was large

Astronomi su pretpostavljali da je Zemljina orbita velika

relative to the distance to the stars.

s obzirom na udaljenost od zvijezda.

Today we would draw the picture more like this,

Danas bismo nacrtali ovakvu sliku,

this comes from NASA,

koja je iz NASE,

and you see the Earth's orbit is actually quite small.

i vidi se da je Zemljina orbita zapravo vrlo mala.

In fact, it's actually much smaller even than shown here.

Ustvari mnogo manja nego što je ovdje prikazano.

The stellar parallax therefore,

Stoga je zvjezdana paralaksa

is very small and actually very hard to detect.

vrlo mala i jako ju je teško otkriti.

And that leads to the second reason

To vodi do drugog razloga

why the prediction didn't work,

zašto predviđanje nije uspjelo,

because scientists were also assuming

jer su znanstvenici također pretpostavljali

that the telescopes they had were sensitive enough

da su teleskopi koje posjeduju dovoljno osjetljivi

to detect the parallax.

da otkriju paralaksu.

And that turned out not to be true.

To se ispostavilo netočnim.

It wasn't until the 19th century

Sve do devetnaestog stoljeća

that scientists were able to detect

znanstvenici nisu mogli otkriti

the stellar parallax.

zvjezdanu paralaksu.

So, there's a third problem as well.

Stoga postoji i treći problem.

The third problem is simply a factual problem,

Treći je problem činjenične prirode,

that a lot of science doesn't fit the textbook model.

mnogo toga u znanosti ne prati udžbenik.

A lot of science isn't deductive at all,

Većina toga u znanosti nije deduktivno,

it's actually inductive.

nego je induktivno.

And by that we mean that scientists don't necessarily

Pri tome mislim da znanstvenici ne moraju nužno

start with theories and hypotheses,

započeti s teorijama i hipotezama,

often they just start with observations

ponekad počinju s opažanjima

of stuff going on in the world.

stvari koje se događaju u svijetu.

And the most famous example of that is one of the most

Slavan primjer za ovo je najpoznatiji

famous scientists who ever lived, Charles Darwin.

znanstvenik ikad, Charles Darwin.

When Darwin went out as a young man on the voyage of the Beagle,

Kada je Darwin kao mladić otišao na putovanje brodom Beagle,

he didn't have a hypothesis, he didn't have a theory.

nije imao hipotezu niti teoriju.

He just knew that he wanted to have a career as a scientist

Znao je samo da želi imati karijeru znanstvenika

and he started to collect data.

pa je počeo prikupljati podatke.

Mainly he knew that he hated medicine

Znao je da mrzi medicinu

because the sight of blood made him sick so

jer mu je bilo mučno pri pogledu na krv

he had to have an alternative career path.

zato je trebao alternativnu karijeru.

So he started collecting data.

Počeo je prikupljati podatke.

And he collected many things, including his famous finches.

Prikupio je mnogo toga uključujući i poznate zebe.

When he collected these finches, he threw them in a bag

Nakon što ih je prikupio stavio ih je u vreću

and he had no idea what they meant.

bez ideje što bi one mogle značiti.

Many years later back in London,

Nekoliko godina kasnije u Londonu

Darwin looked at his data again and began

Darwin je pregledao podatke ispočetka

to develop an explanation,

i razvio objašnjenje,

and that explanation was the theory of natural selection.

a to objašnjenje bila je teorija prirodne selekcije.

Besides inductive science,

Osim induktivne znanosti,

scientists also often participate in modeling.

znanstvenici se često koriste modeliranjem.

One of the things scientists want to do in life

Jedna od stvari koje znanstvenici žele raditi u životu

is to explain the causes of things.

je objasniti uzroke stvari.

And how do we do that?

A kako to učiniti?

Well, one way you can do it is to build a model

Jedan je način izgraditi model

that tests an idea.

za testiranje ideje.

So this is a picture of Henry Cadell,

Ovo je slika Henryja Cadella

who was a Scottish geologist in the 19th century.

škotskog geologa iz 19. stoljeća.

You can tell he's Scottish because he's wearing

Vidi se da je Škot jer nosi

a deerstalker cap and Wellington boots.

lovačku kapu i gumene čizme.

(Laughter)

(Smijeh)

And Cadell wanted to answer the question,

Cadell je htio odgovoriti na pitanje

how are mountains formed?

kako nastaju planine?

And one of the things he had observed

Jedna od stvari koje je uočio

is that if you look at mountains like the Appalachians,

jest da ako pogledamo planinu kao što je Apalačko gorje

you often find that the rocks in them

često se mogu pronaći stijene

are folded,

koje su oblikovane

and they're folded in a particular way,

na određen način

which suggested to him

što je predlagalo

that they were actually being compressed from the side.

da su zapravo bile komprimirane sa strane.

And this idea would later play a major role

Ova ideja kasnije je imala veliku ulogu

in discussions of continental drift.

u raspravi o pomicanju kontinenata.

So he built this model, this crazy contraption

On je sagradio model, ludi izum

with levers and wood, and here's his wheelbarrow,

s polugama i drvima, a evo i njegovih kolica,

buckets, a big sledgehammer.

kanti i velikog čekića.

I don't know why he's got the Wellington boots.

Ne znam zašto nosi gumene čizme.

Maybe it's going to rain.

Možda će padati kiša.

And he created this physical model in order

Stvorio je fizički model kako bi

to demonstrate that you could, in fact, create

pokazao da možemo napraviti

patterns in rocks, or at least, in this case, in mud,

obrasce u stijenama ili kao u ovom slucaju u blatu,

that looked a lot like mountains

koji su izgledali kao planine

if you compressed them from the side.

ako ih komprimiramo sa strane.

So it was an argument about the cause of mountains.

To je bio dokaz o oblikovanju planina.

Nowadays, most scientists prefer to work inside,

Danas mnogi znanstvenici vole raditi u zatvorenom,

so they don't build physical models so much

pa ne grade stvarne modele

as to make computer simulations.

nego računalne simulacije.

But a computer simulation is a kind of a model.

Ali računalne simulacije donekle su modeli.

It's a model that's made with mathematics,

Oni su izrađeni pomoću matematike,

and like the physical models of the 19th century,

te kao i stvarni modeli iz devetnaestog stoljeća

it's very important for thinking about causes.

vrlo važni za razmišljanje o uzrocima.

So one of the big questions to do with climate change,

Jedno od velikih nepoznanica su klimatske promjene

we have tremendous amounts of evidence

i imamo mnoštvo dokaza

that the Earth is warming up.

da se Zemlja zagrijava.

This slide here, the black line shows

Crna linija na slajdu pokazuje

the measurements that scientists have taken

mjerenja koja su znanstvenici dobili

for the last 150 years

u proteklih 150 godina

showing that the Earth's temperature

a pokazuju da se temperatura Zemlje

has steadily increased,

jednoliko povećava

and you can see in particular that in the last 50 years

i možemo vidjeti da u posljednjih 50 godina

there's been this dramatic increase

postoji dramatični porast

of nearly one degree centigrade,

od gotovo jednog Celzijevog stupnja,

or almost two degrees Fahrenheit.

ili skoro dva stupnja po Farenheitu.

So what, though, is driving that change?

Što pokreće tu promjenu?

How can we know what's causing

Kako možemo znati što uzrokuje

the observed warming?

primjetno zatopljenje?

Well, scientists can model it

Znanstvenici ovo mogu prikazati

using a computer simulation.

pomoću računalne simulacije.

So this diagram illustrates a computer simulation

Dijagram prikazuje računalnu simulaciju

that has looked at all the different factors

koja uzima u obzir različite faktore

that we know can influence the Earth's climate,

za koje znamo da utječu na klimu na Zemlji,

so sulfate particles from air pollution,

kao što su sulfati iz onečišćenog zraka,

volcanic dust from volcanic eruptions,

vulkanska prašina od vulkanskih erupcija,

changes in solar radiation,

promjene u Sunčevu zračenju,

and, of course, greenhouse gases.

i staklenički plinovi.

And they asked the question,

Postavilo se pitanje

what set of variables put into a model

koje će raspon varijabli stavljen u mdoel

will reproduce what we actually see in real life?

prikazati ono što vidimo u stvarnom životu?

So here is the real life in black.

Ovdje je stvarni život u crnoj boji.

Here's the model in this light gray,

A ovdje u svjetlo sivoj boji,

and the answer is

i odgovor je

a model that includes, it's the answer E on that SAT,

model koji uključuje je odgovor E na SAT-u,

all of the above.

sve navedeno.

The only way you can reproduce

Jedini je način na koji možemo prikazati

the observed temperature measurements

dobivena temperaturna mjerenja

is with all of these things put together,

ako promatramo zajedno sve navedeno,

including greenhouse gases,

uključujući i stakleničke plinove,

and in particular you can see that the increase

pa možemo vidjeti da porast

in greenhouse gases tracks

stakleničkih plinova prati

this very dramatic increase in temperature

dramatični porast temperature

over the last 50 years.

u posljednjih 50 godina.

And so this is why climate scientists say

Zato klimatolozi tvrde

it's not just that we know that climate change is happening,

da nije samo da znamo da se klimatske promjene događaju,

we know that greenhouse gases are a major part

već su staklenički plinovi uveliko

of the reason why.

razlog za ova zbivanja.

So now because there all these different things

Budući da postoje različite stvari

that scientists do,

kojima se znanstvenici bave,

the philosopher Paul Feyerabend famously said,

filozof Paul Feyerabend je rekao:

"The only principle in science

„Jedino načelo u znanosti

that doesn't inhibit progress is: anything goes."

koje ne koči napredak je: Sve je dopušteno.“

Now this quotation has often been taken out of context,

Ovaj je citat često bio uzet iz konteksta

because Feyerabend was not actually saying

jer Feyerabend nije želio reći

that in science anything goes.

da je u znanosti sve dopušteno.

What he was saying was,

Želio je zapravo reći,

actually the full quotation is,

cijeli citat ide ovako:

"If you press me to say

„Ako me natjerate da kažem

what is the method of science,

koja je znanstvena metoda

I would have to say: anything goes."

ja bih rekao: sve je dopušteno.““

What he was trying to say

Želio je reći

is that scientists do a lot of different things.

Da znanstvenici rade različite stvari.

Scientists are creative.

Znanstvenici su kreativni.

But then this pushes the question back:

Ovo povlači za sobom pitanje:

If scientists don't use a single method,

Ako znanstvenici ne koriste jedinstvenu metodu

then how do they decide

kako onda odlučuju

what's right and what's wrong?

Što je točno, a što ne?

And who judges?

Tko odlučuje?

And the answer is, scientists judge,

Odgovor je, znanstvenici odlučuju

and they judge by judging evidence.

na temelju procjene dokaza.

Scientists collect evidence in many different ways,

Znanstvenici prikupljaju dokaze na različite načine,

but however they collect it,

ali kako god ih prikupili,

they have to subject it to scrutiny.

podvrgavaju ih temeljitom ispitivanju.

And this led the sociologist Robert Merton

Ovo je navelo sociologa Roberta Mertona

to focus on this question of how scientists

da se usredotoči na pitanje kako znanstvenici

scrutinize data and evidence,

ispituju podatke i dokaze

and he said they do it in a way he called

a to rade na način koji se zove

"organized skepticism."

„organizirani skepticizam“.

And by that he meant it's organized

Smatrao je to organiziranim

because they do it collectively,

jer znanstvenici to rade zajedno

they do it as a group,

kao grupa

and skepticism, because they do it from a position

i skeptično, jer tome pristupaju

of distrust.

s nepovjerenjem.

That is to say, the burden of proof

To znači da je težina dokaza

is on the person with a novel claim.

na osobi s novim tvrdnjama.

And in this sense, science is intrinsically conservative.

U tom smislu je znanost u suštini konzervativna.

It's quite hard to persuade the scientific community

Teško je uvjeriti znanstvenu zajednicu

to say, "Yes, we know something, this is true."

da kaže: „Da, znamo nešto i to je istinito.“

So despite the popularity of the concept

Unatoč popularnosti koncepta

of paradigm shifts,

o radikalnim promjenama mišljenja

what we find is that actually,

ipak uočavamo da su

really major changes in scientific thinking

vrlo velike promjene u znanstvenom mišljenju

are relatively rare in the history of science.

relativno rijetke u povijesti znanosti.

So finally that brings us to one more idea:

To nas u konačnici vodi do sljedećeg:

If scientists judge evidence collectively,

Ako znanstvenici kolektivno prosuđuju dokaze,

this has led historians to focus on the question

to dovodi povjesničare na pitanje

of consensus,

postojanja konsenzusa,

and to say that at the end of the day,

a na kraju i tvrdnje

what science is,

da je znanost,

what scientific knowledge is,

i znanstvena spoznaja

is the consensus of the scientific experts

jednoglasna odluka znanstvenih stručnjaka,

who through this process of organized scrutiny,

koji kroz proces temeljitog proučavanja,

collective scrutiny,

zajedničkog promatranja,

have judged the evidence

procjenjuju dokaze

and come to a conclusion about it,

i dolaze do zaključka o tome

either yea or nay.

je li nešto jest ili nije.

So we can think of scientific knowledge

Stoga znanstveno mišljenje možemo shvatiti

as a consensus of experts.

kao jednoglasnu odluku stručnjaka.

We can also think of science as being

Također možemo promatrati znanost

a kind of a jury,

kao neku vrstu porote,

except it's a very special kind of jury.

osim sto je to posebna vrsta porote.

It's not a jury of your peers,

To nije porota vaših vršnjaka,

it's a jury of geeks.

nego porota štrebera.

It's a jury of men and women with Ph.D.s,

Porota muškaraca i žena s doktoratom,

and unlike a conventional jury,

i za razliku od uobičajene porote,

which has only two choices,

koja ima samo dva izbora

guilty or not guilty,

kriv ili nije kriv,

the scientific jury actually has a number of choices.

znanstvena porota ima brojne izbore.

Scientists can say yes, something's true.

Znanstvenici mogu reći da je nešto istinito.

Scientists can say no, it's false.

Ili mogu reći da je to neistinito.

Or, they can say, well it might be true

Ili da je to možda istinito

but we need to work more and collect more evidence.

Ali potrebno je još posla i prikupiti više dokaza.

Or, they can say it might be true,

I mogu reći da je nešto možda istinito,

but we don't know how to answer the question

ali se ne zna odgovor na pitanje

and we're going to put it aside

pa će se ostaviti sa strane

and maybe we'll come back to it later.

i vratiti se tomu kasnije.

That's what scientists call "intractable."

Za to znanstvenici kažu da je beskompromisno.

But this leads us to one final problem:

Ovo nas vodi do zadnjeg problema:

If science is what scientists say it is,

Ako je znanost ono što znanstvenici kažu da je,

then isn't that just an appeal to authority?

nije li to onda poziv na autoritet?

And weren't we all taught in school

Nisu li nas u školi učili

that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy?

da je poziv na autoritet logična pogreška?

Well, here's the paradox of modern science,

Ovdje stoji paradoks moderne znanosti,

the paradox of the conclusion I think historians

paradoks zaključka do kojeg su došli

and philosophers and sociologists have come to,

povjesničari,filozofi i sociolozi,

that actually science is the appeal to authority,

da je znanost pozivanje na autoritet,

but it's not the authority of the individual,

ali ne autoritet pojedinca

no matter how smart that individual is,

bez obzira koliko pametan bio

like Plato or Socrates or Einstein.

Kao Platon, Sokrat ili Einstein.

It's the authority of the collective community.

Ona je autoritet cijele zajednice.

You can think of it is a kind of wisdom of the crowd,

Zamislite to kao neku vrstu mudrosti gomile,

but a very special kind of crowd.

ali vrlo posebne gomile.

Science does appeal to authority,

Znanost se poziva na autoritet

but it's not based on any individual,

ali se ne temelji na pojedincu

no matter how smart that individual may be.

bez obzira koliko on bio pametan.

It's based on the collective wisdom,

Temelji se na zajedničkoj mudrosti

the collective knowledge, the collective work,

kolektivnom znanju i radu

of all of the scientists who have worked

svih znanstvenika koji su radili

on a particular problem.

na određenom problemu.

Scientists have a kind of culture of collective distrust,

Znanstvenici imaju neku vrstu kolektivnog nepovjerenja,

this "show me" culture,

"pokaži mi" kulturu,

illustrated by this nice woman here

prikazana ovom ženom

showing her colleagues her evidence.

koja pokazuje kolegama svoje dokaze.

Of course, these people don't really look like scientists,

Ovi ljudi, naravno, ne izgledaju kao znanstvenici

because they're much too happy.

Jer izgledaju previše sretno.

(Laughter)

(Smijeh)

Okay, so that brings me to my final point.

Ovo me vodi do konačnog zaključka.

Most of us get up in the morning.

Mnogi od nas ustaju ujutro.

Most of us trust our cars.

Vjeruju svojim autima.

Well, see, now I'm thinking, I'm in Manhattan,

Kad razmislimo o tome, ja sam s Manhattana,

this is a bad analogy,

ovo je loša analogija,

but most Americans who don't live in Manhattan

ali mnogi Amerikanci koji nisu s Manhattana

get up in the morning and get in their cars

ustaju ujutro i ulaze u auto

and turn on that ignition, and their cars work,

upale auto i on radi

and they work incredibly well.

Nevjerojatno dobro.

The modern automobile hardly ever breaks down.

Moderni se automobili rijetko kada pokvare

So why is that? Why do cars work so well?

Zašto je to tako? Zašto auti rade tako dobro?

It's not because of the genius of Henry Ford

To nije zbog genijalnosti Henryja Forda

or Karl Benz or even Elon Musk.

Karla Benza ili Elona Muska.

It's because the modern automobile

Nago zato što su moderni automobili

is the product of more than 100 years of work

proizvod više od sto godina rada

by hundreds and thousands

stotina i tisuća

and tens of thousands of people.

pa i desetaka tisuća ljudi.

The modern automobile is the product

Moderni je automobil proizvod

of the collected work and wisdom and experience

zajedničkog rada, znanja i iskustva

of every man and woman who has ever worked

svakog muškarca i žene koji je ikad radio

on a car,

na autu,

and the reliability of the technology is the result

a pouzdanost tehnologije rezultat je

of that accumulated effort.

zajedničkog truda.

We benefit not just from the genius of Benz

Ne profitiramo samo od genijalnosti Benza

and Ford and Musk

Forda i Muska,

but from the collective intelligence and hard work

nego i zajedničke inteligencije i teškog rada

of all of the people who have worked

svih ljudi koji su ikad radili

on the modern car.

na modernom autu.

And the same is true of science,

Isto vrijedi i za znanost,

only science is even older.

samo što je puno starija.

Our basis for trust in science is actually the same

Temelj povjerenja u znanost kao i

as our basis in trust in technology,

temelj povejerenja u tehnologiju,

and the same as our basis for trust in anything,

ali i temelj vjerovanja svemu ostalome

namely, experience.

je iskustvo.

But it shouldn't be blind trust

To ne bi trebalo biti slijepo vjerovanje

any more than we would have blind trust in anything.

kao ni slijepo vjerovanje u bilo što

Our trust in science, like science itself,

Povjerenje u znanost kao znanost po sebi

should be based on evidence,

trebalo bi biti utemeljeno na dokazu

and that means that scientists

a to znači da bi znanstvenici

have to become better communicators.

trebali postati bolji komunikatori.

They have to explain to us not just what they know

Trebali bi objašnjavati ne samo ono što znaju

but how they know it,

nego i kako to znaju

and it means that we have to become better listeners.

što znači da mi trebamo postati bolji slušatelji.

Thank you very much.

Hvala lijepa.

(Applause)

(Pljesak)