Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists

Prevodilac: Nemanja Aleksić Lektor: Mile Živković

Every day we face issues like climate change

Svakodnevno se suočavamo sa problemima poput klimatskih promena

or the safety of vaccines

ili bezbednosti vakcina

where we have to answer questions whose answers

gde moramo da odgovorimo na pitanja čiji odgovori

rely heavily on scientific information.

su zasnovani na naučnim informacijama.

Scientists tell us that the world is warming.

Naučnici nam govore da se svet zagreva.

Scientists tell us that vaccines are safe.

Naučnici nam govore da su vakcine bezbedne.

But how do we know if they are right?

Kako da znamo da li su u pravu?

Why should be believe the science?

Zašto da verujemo nauci?

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

Zapravo, mnogi od nas ne veruju nauci.

Public opinion polls consistently show

Istraživanja javnog mnjenja dosledno pokazuju

that significant proportions of the American people

da znatan deo Amerikanaca

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

ne veruje da su klimatske promene izazvane čovekovim delovanjem,

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

ne veruje u evoluciju putem prirodne selekcije,

and aren't persuaded by the safety of vaccines.

i nije uveren u bezbednost vakcina.

So why should we believe the science?

Zašto onda da verujemo nauci?

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

Naučnici ne vole da govore o nauci kao o predmetu verovanja.

In fact, they would contrast science with faith,

Zapravo, suprotstavili bi nauku veri

and they would say belief is the domain of faith.

i rekli bi da verovanje pripada veri.

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

A vera je jasno odvojena i drugačija od nauke.

Indeed they would say religion is based on faith

Rekli bi čak da je religija zasnovana na veri

or maybe the calculus of Pascal's wager.

ili možda proračunu Paskalove opklade.

Blaise Pascal was a 17th-century mathematician

Blez Paskal je bio matematičar iz 17. veka

who tried to bring scientific reasoning to the question of

koji je pokušao da uvede naučno mišljenje u pitanje

whether or not he should believe in God,

da li da veruje u boga ili ne

and his wager went like this:

i evo kako je išla njegova opklada:

Well, if God doesn't exist

Ako bog ne postoji,

but I decide to believe in him

a ja odlučim da verujem u njega,

nothing much is really lost.

neću mnogo izgubiti.

Maybe a few hours on Sunday.

Možda nekoliko sati nedeljom.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

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

Ali ako on postoji, a ja ne verujem u njega,

then I'm in deep trouble.

u velikom sam problemu.

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

Tako je Paskal rekao da je bolje da verujemo u boga.

Or as one of my college professors said,

Kako je rekao jedan od mojih profesora:

"He clutched for the handrail of faith."

"Posegnuo je za rukohvatom vere."

He made that leap of faith

Odlučio je da posegne za verom

leaving science and rationalism behind.

ostavljajući nauku i racionalizam za sobom.

Now the fact is though, for most of us,

Međutim, činjenica je da, za većinu nas,

most scientific claims are a leap of faith.

naučna saznanja predstavljaju posezanje za verom.

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

Uglavnom ne možemo sami da procenimo naučna saznanja.

And indeed this is actually true for most scientists as well

To je slučaj i sa većinom naučnika

outside of their own specialties.

van njihovih uskih struka.

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

Ako malo razmislite, geolog ne može da vam kaže

whether a vaccine is safe.

da li je neka vakcina bezbedna.

Most chemists are not experts in evolutionary theory.

Većina hemičara nisu stručnjaci za teoriju evolucije.

A physicist cannot tell you,

Fizičar ne može da vam kaže,

despite the claims of some of them,

šta god neki od njih govorili,

whether or not tobacco causes cancer.

da li duvan izaziva rak ili ne.

So, if even scientists themselves

Ako i sami naučnici

have to make a leap of faith

moraju da imaju poverenja

outside their own fields,

u ono što nije iz njihove oblasti,

then why do they accept the claims of other scientists?

zašto prihvataju tvrdnje drugih naučnika?

Why do they believe each other's claims?

Zašto veruju u ono što drugi tvrde?

And should we believe those claims?

I da li bi trebalo mi u to da verujemo?

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

Ja smatram da bi trebalo u to da verujemo,

but not for the reason that most of us think.

ali ne zbog razloga na koji većina nas misli.

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

Uglavnom su nas učili u školi da treba

believe in science is because of the scientific method.

da verujemo u nauku zbog naučnog metoda.

We were taught that scientists follow a method

Učili su nas da naučnici prate određeni metod

and that this method guarantees

i da taj metod garantuje

the truth of their claims.

istinitost njihovih tvrdnji.

The method that most of us were taught in school,

Metod kome su nas uglavnom učili u školi,

we can call it the textbook method,

nazovimo ga udžbenički metod,

is the hypothetical deductive method.

jeste hipotetički deduktivni metod.

According to the standard model, the textbook model,

Prema standardnom, udžbeničkom modelu,

scientists develop hypotheses, they deduce

naučnici razvijaju hipoteze,

dedukuju posledice tih hipoteza,

the consequences of those hypotheses,

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

pa odu u stvarni svet i kažu:

"Okay, well are those consequences true?"

"Jesu li te posledice tačne?"

Can we observe them taking place in the natural world?

Možemo li ih uočiti u prirodi?

And if they are true, then the scientists say,

Ako su tačne, naučnici kažu:

"Great, we know the hypothesis is correct."

"Super, znamo da je hipoteza tačna."

So there are many famous examples in the history

Mnogo je poznatih primera u istoriji nauke

of science of scientists doing exactly this.

gde naučnici upravo to i rade.

One of the most famous examples

Jedan od najpoznatijih primera

comes from the work of Albert Einstein.

vezan je za delo Alberta Ajnštajna.

When Einstein developed the theory of general relativity,

Kada je Ajnštajn razvio opštu teoriju relativnosti,

one of the consequences of his theory

jedna od posledica njegove teorije

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

bila je da prostor-vreme nije samo praznina

but that it actually had a fabric.

već da je sačinjeno od neke materije.

And that that fabric was bent

Ta materija je iskrivljena

in the presence of massive objects like the sun.

u prisustvu ogromnih predmeta poput Sunca.

So if this theory were true then it meant that light

Ako je ova teorija tačna, znači da svetlost

as it passed the sun

kad prolazi pored Sunca

should actually be bent around it.

treba da se iskrivi oko njega.

That was a pretty startling prediction

Bila je to iznenađujuća pretpostavka

and it took a few years before scientists

i bilo je potrebno nekoliko godina

were able to test it

da je naučnici ispitaju,

but they did test it in 1919,

ispitali su je 1919.

and lo and behold it turned out to be true.

i zapravo se ispostavila tačnom.

Starlight actually does bend as it travels around the sun.

Svetlost sa zvezda se zaista krivi dok putuje oko Sunca.

This was a huge confirmation of the theory.

Bila je to važna potvrda ove teorije.

It was considered proof of the truth

Smatrana je dokazom istinitosti

of this radical new idea,

te nove radikalne ideje

and it was written up in many newspapers

i o tome se pisalo u novinama

around the globe.

širom sveta.

Now, sometimes this theory or this model

Ponekad se ova teorija ili model

is referred to as the deductive-nomological model,

naziva deduktivno-nomološki model,

mainly because academics like to make things complicated.

uglavnom zato što naučnici vole da zakomplikuju stvari.

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

Ali i zato što se u savršenim slučajevima radi o zakonima.

So nomological means having to do with laws.

Nomološki znači da je povezano sa zakonima.

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

U savršenom slučaju hipoteza nije puka ideja:

ideally, it is a law of nature.

reč je o prirodnom zakonu.

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

Zašto je važno da bude prirodni zakon?

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

Zato što, ako je zakon, ne može biti prekršena.

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

Ako je zakon, uvek će biti istinita,

in all times and all places

bilo kad i bilo gde,

no matter what the circumstances are.

kakve god da su okolnosti.

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

Svi znate bar jedan primer poznatog zakona:

Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2,

Ajnštajnova čuvena jednačina, E=MC2,

which tells us what the relationship is

koja objašnjava odnos

between energy and mass.

između energije i mase.

And that relationship is true no matter what.

Taj odnos je uvek istinit.

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

Međutim, postoji nekoliko problema sa ovim modelom.

The main problem is that it's wrong.

Glavni problem je to što je pogrešan.

It's just not true. (Laughter)

Prosto nije tačan. (Smeh)

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

Govoriću o tri razloga zbog kojih je pogrešan.

So the first reason is a logical reason.

Prvi je logički razlog.

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

To je problem logičke greške tvrđenja posledice.

So that's another fancy, academic way of saying

I to je moderan, naučnički način da kažemo

that false theories can make true predictions.

da iz netačnih teorija mogu proisteći tačne pretpostavke.

So just because the prediction comes true

Ako se utvrdi da je pretpostavka tačna,

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

zapravo nije logično dokazano da je teorija tačna.

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

I za to imam dobar primer, ponovo iz istorije nauke.

This is a picture of the Ptolemaic universe

Ovo je slika ptolomejskog svemira

with the Earth at the center of the universe

sa Zemljom u središtu svemira

and the sun and the planets going around it.

i Suncem i planetama koji se okreću oko nje.

The Ptolemaic model was believed

U ptolomejski model su verovali

by many very smart people for many centuries.

mnogi veoma pametni ljudi vekovima.

Well, why?

Zbog čega?

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

Zato što su iz njega proizišle mnoge tačne pretpostavke.

The Ptolemaic system enabled astronomers

Zahvaljujući potlomejskom sistemu,

to make accurate predictions of the motions of the planet,

astronomi su precizno predviđali kretanja planete,

in fact more accurate predictions at first

čak i tačnije u početku

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

od Kopernikove teorije koju bismo sad prihvatili kao tačnu.

So that's one problem with the textbook model.

To je jedan od problema udžbeničkog modela.

A second problem is a practical problem,

Drugi je praktični problem,

and it's the problem of auxiliary hypotheses.

odnosno problem pomoćnih hipoteza.

Auxiliary hypotheses are assumptions

Pomoćne hipoteze su pretpostavke

that scientists are making

koje naučnici stvaraju,

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

a toga možda i nisu svesni.

So an important example of this

Važan primer ovoga

comes from the Copernican model,

vezan je za Kopernikov model,

which ultimately replaced the Ptolemaic system.

koji je kasnije zamenio ptolomejski sistem.

So when Nicolaus Copernicus said,

Nikola Kopernik je rekao

actually the Earth is not the center of the universe,

da Zemlja zapravo nije središte svemira,

the sun is the center of the solar system,

Sunce je centar Sunčevog sistema,

the Earth moves around the sun.

Zemlja se okreće oko Sunca.

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

Naučnici su rekli da, ako je to tačno,

we ought to be able to detect the motion

trebalo bi da smo u stanju

of the Earth around the sun.

da primetimo kretanje Zemlje oko Sunca.

And so this slide here illustrates a concept

Ovaj slajd ilustruje koncept

known as stellar parallax.

poznat kao zvezdana paralaksa.

And astronomers said, if the Earth is moving

Astronomi su rekli da, ako se Zemlja kreće

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

i posmatramo sjajnu zvezdu, recimo, Sirijus -

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

znam da sam na Menhetnu, tako da vi zvezde i ne vidite,

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

ali zamislite da ste na selu, da ste izabrali ruralni život -

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

ako pogledamo neku zvezdu u decembru

against the backdrop of distant stars.

videćemo u pozadini i udaljene zvezde.

If we now make the same observation six months later

Ako to isto pogledamo za šest meseci,

when the Earth has moved to this position in June,

kad Zemlja dođe do ovog položaja u junu,

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

videćemo istu zvezdu, ali sa drugačijom pozadinom.

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

Ta razlika u uglu zove se zvezdana paralaksa.

So this is a prediction that the Copernican model makes.

To je pretpostavka Kopernikovog modela.

Astronomers looked for the stellar parallax

Astronomi su tražili zvezdanu paralaksu

and they found nothing, nothing at all.

i nisu došli ni do čega.

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

Mnogi su tvrdili da je to dokaz netačnosti Kopernikovog modela.

So what happened?

Šta se onda dogodilo?

Well, in hindsight we can say that astronomers were making

Možemo da pretpostavimo da su astronomi

two auxiliary hypotheses, both of which

pravili dve pomoćne hipoteze

we would now say were incorrect.

i za obe bismo sad rekli da su netačne.

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.

u odnosu na udaljenost od zvezda.

Today we would draw the picture more like this,

Danas bismo pre nacrtali ovakvu sliku,

this comes from NASA,

ovu je uradila NASA

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

i vidi se da je Zemljina orbita prilično mala.

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

Zapravo je mnogo manja nego što je ovde prikazano.

The stellar parallax therefore,

Stoga je zvezdana paralaksa

is very small and actually very hard to detect.

veoma mala i jako ju je teško uočiti.

And that leads to the second reason

To nas dovodi do drugog razloga

why the prediction didn't work,

zbog kog pretpostavka nije funkcionisala,

because scientists were also assuming

a to je pretpostavka naučnika

that the telescopes they had were sensitive enough

da su njihovi teleskopi dovoljno precizni

to detect the parallax.

da uoče paralaksu.

And that turned out not to be true.

Ispostavilo se da to nije tačno.

It wasn't until the 19th century

Tek su u 19. veku

that scientists were able to detect

naučnici mogli da uoče

the stellar parallax.

zvezdanu paralaksu.

So, there's a third problem as well.

Postoji i treći problem.

The third problem is simply a factual problem,

To je prosto činjenični problem,

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

nauka se dobrim delom ne uklapa u udžbenički model.

A lot of science isn't deductive at all,

Nauka dobrim delom uopšte nije deduktivna,

it's actually inductive.

već je induktivna.

And by that we mean that scientists don't necessarily

To znači da naučnici ne polaze nužno

start with theories and hypotheses,

od teorija i hipoteza,

often they just start with observations

često polaze od opažanja

of stuff going on in the world.

događaja u svetu.

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

Najpoznatiji primer za ovo

famous scientists who ever lived, Charles Darwin.

jedan je od najvećih naučnika svih vremena, Čarls Darvin.

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

Kada je Darvin kao mladić pošao na putovanje brodom Bigl,

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

nije imao nikakvu hipotezu ili teoriju.

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

Jedino je znao da želi da radi kao naučnik

and he started to collect data.

i počeo je da prikuplja podatke.

Mainly he knew that he hated medicine

Znao je uglavnom da mrzi medicinu

because the sight of blood made him sick so

jer mu je kad ugleda krv bilo toliko loše

he had to have an alternative career path.

da je potražio drugo zanimanje.

So he started collecting data.

Tako je počeo da prikuplja podatke.

And he collected many things, including his famous finches.

Prikupio je mnogo toga, između ostalog i čuvene zebe.

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

Kada je pronašao te zebe, ubacio ih je u vreću

and he had no idea what they meant.

i nije ni pretpostavljao šta to znači.

Many years later back in London,

Mnogo godina kasnije u Londonu

Darwin looked at his data again and began

Darvin je ponovo analizirao svoje podatke

to develop an explanation,

i počeo da razvija objašnjenje,

and that explanation was the theory of natural selection.

odnosno teoriju prirodne selekcije.

Besides inductive science,

Pored induktivne nauke,

scientists also often participate in modeling.

naučnici se često bave stvaranjem modela.

One of the things scientists want to do in life

Jedan od životnih ciljeva naučnika

is to explain the causes of things.

jeste da objasne uzrok stvari.

And how do we do that?

Kako se to radi?

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

Recimo, tako što se napravi model

that tests an idea.

koji ispituje određenu ideju.

So this is a picture of Henry Cadell,

Ovo je slika Henrija Kadela,

who was a Scottish geologist in the 19th century.

škotskog geologa iz 19. veka.

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

Jasno je da je iz Škotske jer nosi

a deerstalker cap and Wellington boots.

avijatičarsku kapu i gumene čizme.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

And Cadell wanted to answer the question,

Kadel je hteo da odgovori na pitanje

how are mountains formed?

kako nastaju planine.

And one of the things he had observed

Jedno od njegovih opažanja je da,

is that if you look at mountains like the Appalachians,

ako pogledate venac poput Apalačkih planina,

you often find that the rocks in them

često ćete uočiti da su stene u njima

are folded,

naborane,

and they're folded in a particular way,

i to na poseban način,

which suggested to him

što mu je dalo ideju

that they were actually being compressed from the side.

da su možda sabijane sa jedne na drugu stranu.

And this idea would later play a major role

Ta ideja je kasnije odigrala ključnu ulogu

in discussions of continental drift.

u raspravama o pomeranju kontinenanta.

So he built this model, this crazy contraption

Napravio je jedan model, suludu skalameriju

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

sa polugama i drvetom; evo baštenskih kolica,

buckets, a big sledgehammer.

kanti, velikog malja.

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

Ne znam zašto je u gumenim čizmama.

Maybe it's going to rain.

Možda samo što nije počela kiša.

And he created this physical model in order

Napravio je ovaj fizički model

to demonstrate that you could, in fact, create

da bi pokazao da se zaista mogu stvoriti

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

šare u kamenu, ili u ovom slučaju u blatu,

that looked a lot like mountains

i da podsećaju na planine

if you compressed them from the side.

ako se sabijaju sa obe strane.

So it was an argument about the cause of mountains.

Bio je to dokaz o poreklu planina.

Nowadays, most scientists prefer to work inside,

Danas naučnici radije rade unutra,

so they don't build physical models so much

tako da ne prave fizičke modele

as to make computer simulations.

koliko kompjuterske simulacije.

But a computer simulation is a kind of a model.

I to je neka vrsta modela.

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

Pravi se pomoću matematike

and like the physical models of the 19th century,

i, poput fizičkih modela iz 19. veka,

it's very important for thinking about causes.

veoma je bitan za izučavanje uzroka.

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

Jedno od najvećih pitanja u vezi sa klimatskim promenama

we have tremendous amounts of evidence

jeste ogromna količina dokaza

that the Earth is warming up.

da se Zemlja zagreva.

This slide here, the black line shows

Na ovom slajdu crna linija pokazuje

the measurements that scientists have taken

merenja koja su naučnici obavili

for the last 150 years

tokom poslednjih 150 godina

showing that the Earth's temperature

i koja pokazuju da temperatura Zemlje

has steadily increased,

stabilno raste,

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

a posebno se vidi da je u poslednjih 50 godina

there's been this dramatic increase

došlo do naglog porasta

of nearly one degree centigrade,

od skoro jednog stepena Celzijusa

or almost two degrees Fahrenheit.

ili blizu dva stepena Farenhajta.

So what, though, is driving that change?

Ali šta je uzrok te promene?

How can we know what's causing

Kako da znamo šta izaziva

the observed warming?

uočeno zagrevanje?

Well, scientists can model it

Naučnici mogu da naprave model

using a computer simulation.

pomoću kompjuterske simulacije.

So this diagram illustrates a computer simulation

Ovaj dijagram ilustruje kompjutersku simulaciju

that has looked at all the different factors

koja je izučavala sve one faktore

that we know can influence the Earth's climate,

za koje znamo da mogu da utiču na klimu Zemlje,

so sulfate particles from air pollution,

čestice sulfata iz zagađenog vazduha,

volcanic dust from volcanic eruptions,

vulkansku prašinu iz vulkanskih erupcija,

changes in solar radiation,

promene u Sunčevom zračenju

and, of course, greenhouse gases.

i gasove sa efektom staklene bašte.

And they asked the question,

Postavili su sledeće pitanje:

what set of variables put into a model

koji će skup promenljivih unetih u određeni model

will reproduce what we actually see in real life?

reprodukovati ono što vidimo u stvarnosti?

So here is the real life in black.

Stvarnost je prikazana crnom bojom.

Here's the model in this light gray,

Model je prikazan svetlosivom,

and the answer is

a odgovor je

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

model koji uključuje, kao odgovor pod E na prijemnom,

all of the above.

sve gore navedeno.

The only way you can reproduce

Jedini način da reprodukujete

the observed temperature measurements

zabeležena temperaturna merenja

is with all of these things put together,

je sa svim ovim stvarima zajedno,

including greenhouse gases,

uključujući emisije gasova sa efektom staklene bašte,

and in particular you can see that the increase

i prevashodno možete videti da rast

in greenhouse gases tracks

gasova sa efektom staklene bašte prati

this very dramatic increase in temperature

vrlo dramatičan rast temperature

over the last 50 years.

u proteklih 50 godina.

And so this is why climate scientists say

I zbog toga klimatolozi kažu

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

"ne samo da znamo da se klimatska promena dešava,

we know that greenhouse gases are a major part

znamo da su gasovi sa efektom staklene bašte veliki deo

of the reason why.

uzroka."

So now because there all these different things

Zato zbog svih tih različitih stvari

that scientists do,

koje naučnici rade,

the philosopher Paul Feyerabend famously said,

filozof Pol Fajerabend je rekao čuvenu:

"The only principle in science

"Jedini princip u nauci

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

koji ne sputava napredak je: Sve može da prođe."

Now this quotation has often been taken out of context,

Ovaj citat je često vađen iz konteksta,

because Feyerabend was not actually saying

jer Fajerabend nije zapravo rekao

that in science anything goes.

da u nauci sve može da prođe.

What he was saying was,

Ono što je govorio je,

actually the full quotation is,

zapravo pun citat je:

"If you press me to say

"Ako me pritisnete da kažem

what is the method of science,

koji je naučni metod,

I would have to say: anything goes."

morao bih reći: Sve može da prođe."

What he was trying to say

On je pokušao da kaže

is that scientists do a lot of different things.

da naučnici rade mnogo različitih stvari.

Scientists are creative.

Naučnici su kreativni.

But then this pushes the question back:

Ako onda to preokreće pitanje:

If scientists don't use a single method,

ako naučnici ne koriste samo jedan metod,

then how do they decide

kako onda odluče

what's right and what's wrong?

šta je neispravno, a šta nije?

And who judges?

I ko će da presudi?

And the answer is, scientists judge,

I odgovor je, naučnici presuđuju,

and they judge by judging evidence.

i sude prema dokazima.

Scientists collect evidence in many different ways,

Naučnici skupljaju dokaze na mnogo različitih načina,

but however they collect it,

ali kako god da ih skupe,

they have to subject it to scrutiny.

moraju da ih stave pod lupu.

And this led the sociologist Robert Merton

I ovo je navelo sociologa Roberta Mertona

to focus on this question of how scientists

da se fokusira na to pitanje kako naučnici

scrutinize data and evidence,

posmatraju podatke i dokaze,

and he said they do it in a way he called

i rekao je da oni to rade na način koji je nazvao

"organized skepticism."

"organizovani skepticizam."

And by that he meant it's organized

Time je mislio da je organizovan

because they do it collectively,

jer to rade kolektivno,

they do it as a group,

rade kao grupa,

and skepticism, because they do it from a position

i skepticizam, jer to rade sa pozicije

of distrust.

nepoverenja.

That is to say, the burden of proof

Drugačije rečeno, teret dokazivanja

is on the person with a novel claim.

je na osobi sa novom tvrdnjom.

And in this sense, science is intrinsically conservative.

I u ovom smislu nauka je suštinski konzervativna.

It's quite hard to persuade the scientific community

Veoma je teško ubediti naučnu zajednicu

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

da kaže: "Da, mi znamo nešto, ovo je tačno."

So despite the popularity of the concept

Zato uprkos popularnosti koncepta

of paradigm shifts,

promena paradigme,

what we find is that actually,

ono što nalazimo je da su zapravo,

really major changes in scientific thinking

veoma velike promene u naučnom razmišljanju

are relatively rare in the history of science.

relativno retke u istoriji nauke.

So finally that brings us to one more idea:

To nas najzad dovodi do još jedne ideje:

If scientists judge evidence collectively,

Ako naučnici kolektivno prosuđuju dokaz,

this has led historians to focus on the question

ovo je navelo istoričare da se fokusiraju na pitanje

of consensus,

konsenzusa,

and to say that at the end of the day,

i da kažu da na kraju dana,

what science is,

ono što je nauka,

what scientific knowledge is,

ono što je naučno znanje,

is the consensus of the scientific experts

je konsenzus naučnih stručnjaka

who through this process of organized scrutiny,

koji su kroz ovaj proces ogranizovanog posmatranja,

collective scrutiny,

kolektivnog posmatranja,

have judged the evidence

presudili dokaze

and come to a conclusion about it,

i došli do zaključka,

either yea or nay.

bilo za ili protiv.

So we can think of scientific knowledge

Zato možemo razmišljati o naučničkom znanju

as a consensus of experts.

kao o konsenzusu stručnjaka.

We can also think of science as being

Možemo razmišljati o nauci

a kind of a jury,

kao o nekoj vrsti porote,

except it's a very special kind of jury.

s tim da je veoma posebna vrsta porote.

It's not a jury of your peers,

To nije porota vama jednakih,

it's a jury of geeks.

to je porota štrebera.

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

To je porota muškaraca i žena sa doktoratima,

and unlike a conventional jury,

i za razliku od konvencionalne porote,

which has only two choices,

koja ima samo dve opcije,

guilty or not guilty,

kriv i nije kriv,

the scientific jury actually has a number of choices.

naučnička porota zapravo ima mnoštvo opcija.

Scientists can say yes, something's true.

Naučnici mogu reći da, nešto je istinito.

Scientists can say no, it's false.

Naučnici mogu reći ne, to je neistinito.

Or, they can say, well it might be true

Ili, mogu reći, pa to bi moglo biti istina

but we need to work more and collect more evidence.

ali moramo još raditi i prikupiti još dokaza.

Or, they can say it might be true,

Ili, mogu reći da bi moglo biti istina,

but we don't know how to answer the question

ali ne znamo kako da odgovorimo na pitanje

and we're going to put it aside

and maybe we'll come back to it later.

i odložićemo ga

i možda ćemo vratiti na sto kasnije.

That's what scientists call "intractable."

To je ono što naučnici nazivaju zavrzlamom.

But this leads us to one final problem:

Ali ovo dovodi do finalnog problema:

If science is what scientists say it is,

ako je nauka ono što naučnici kažu da je,

then isn't that just an appeal to authority?

zar nije to onda samo poziv na autoritet?

And weren't we all taught in school

I zar nismo svi učeni u školi

that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy?

da je pozivanje na autoritet logička greška?

Well, here's the paradox of modern science,

Pa, eto ga paradoks moderne nauke,

the paradox of the conclusion I think historians

paradoks zaključka do kojeg mislim da su istoričari

and philosophers and sociologists have come to,

i filozofi i sociolozi došli,

that actually science is the appeal to authority,

da je nauka zapravo poziv na autoritet,

but it's not the authority of the individual,

ali nije poziv na autoritet individue,

no matter how smart that individual is,

bez obzira koliko je pametna ta individua,

like Plato or Socrates or Einstein.

poput Platona ili Sokrata ili Ajnštajna.

It's the authority of the collective community.

To je autoritet kolektivne zajednice.

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

Možete razmišljati o ovome kao o mudrosti rulje,

but a very special kind of crowd.

ali vrlo posebne rulje.

Science does appeal to authority,

Nauka se zaista poziva na autoritet,

but it's not based on any individual,

ali on nije zasnovan na bilo kom pojedincu,

no matter how smart that individual may be.

bez obzira na to koliko je ta osoba pametna.

It's based on the collective wisdom,

Zasnovan je na kolektivnoj mudrosti,

the collective knowledge, the collective work,

kolektivnom znanju, kolektivnom radu,

of all of the scientists who have worked

svih naučnika koji su radili

on a particular problem.

na konkretnom problemu.

Scientists have a kind of culture of collective distrust,

Naučnici imaju neku vrstu kulture kolektivnog nepoverenja,

this "show me" culture,

tu kulturu "pokaži mi",

illustrated by this nice woman here

ilustrovanu ovom finom ženom

showing her colleagues her evidence.

koja izlaže kolegama svoje dokaze.

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

Naravno, ovi ljudi baš i ne izgledaju kao naučnici,

because they're much too happy.

jer su suviše veseli.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Okay, so that brings me to my final point.

OK, ovo me dovodi do moje konačne poente.

Most of us get up in the morning.

Većina nas ustaje ujutru.

Most of us trust our cars.

Većina nas veruje svojim automobilima.

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

Vidite, setila sam se da sam na Menhetnu,

this is a bad analogy,

ovo je loša analogija,

but most Americans who don't live in Manhattan

ali većina Amerikanaca koji ne žive na Menhetnu

get up in the morning and get in their cars

ustaju ujutru i sedaju u svoja kola

and turn on that ignition, and their cars work,

upale auto, i njihova kola rade,

and they work incredibly well.

i to rade zapanjujuće dobro.

The modern automobile hardly ever breaks down.

Moderni automobil se skoro nikad ne kvari.

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

Zašto je to tako? Zašto automobili rade tako dobro?

It's not because of the genius of Henry Ford

To nije zbog genija Henri Forda

or Karl Benz or even Elon Musk.

ili Karla Benca ili čak Elona Maska.

It's because the modern automobile

To je zato što je moderni automobil

is the product of more than 100 years of work

proizvod preko 100 godina rada

by hundreds and thousands

stotina i hiljada

and tens of thousands of people.

i desetina hiljada ljudi.

The modern automobile is the product

Moderni automobil je proizvod

of the collected work and wisdom and experience

kolektivnog rada i mudrosti i iskustva

of every man and woman who has ever worked

svakog čoveka i žene koji su ikada radili

on a car,

na automobilu,

and the reliability of the technology is the result

i pouzdanost tehnologije je posledica

of that accumulated effort.

akumuliranog truda.

We benefit not just from the genius of Benz

Imamo korist ne samo od genija Benca

and Ford and Musk

i Forda i Maska,

but from the collective intelligence and hard work

već i od kolektivne inteligencije i vrednog rada

of all of the people who have worked

svih ljudi koji su radili

on the modern car.

na modernom automobilu.

And the same is true of science,

Isto važi i za nauku,

only science is even older.

samo što je nauka još starija.

Our basis for trust in science is actually the same

Osnova našeg poverenja u nauku je zapravo ista

as our basis in trust in technology,

kao i osnova našeg poverenja u tehnologiju,

and the same as our basis for trust in anything,

i ista kao i osnova našeg poverenja u bilo šta,

namely, experience.

kao na primer, iskustvo.

But it shouldn't be blind trust

Ali to ne treba biti slepo poverenje

any more than we would have blind trust in anything.

ništa više nego što bismo imali slepo poverenje u bilo šta.

Our trust in science, like science itself,

Naše poverenje u nauku, kao i sama nauka,

should be based on evidence,

treba biti zasnovano na dokazima,

and that means that scientists

i to znači da naučnici

have to become better communicators.

moraju postati bolji komunikatori.

They have to explain to us not just what they know

Moraju nam objasniti ne samo šta znaju

but how they know it,

već i kako su to saznali,

and it means that we have to become better listeners.

i to znači da moramo postati bolji slušaoci.

Thank you very much.

Hvala vam mnogo.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)