I recently heard Neil deGrasse Tyson (American astrophysicist and writer) speak on conspiracy theories e.g. UFO's, The Moon Landings and Flat Earthers to name a few. He debunked many, for instance; those that believe the moon landings were faked (all 9 of them) was disproven by the evidence: we have moon rocks brought back and there is equipment we left up there that can be seen. He also added "Why would we go to the expense and risk of faking 9 landings, wouldn't faking one be enough?"
Neil dropped a lot of knowledge but this part stuck with me the most, because it can apply to our divided political tribalism as much as it does conspiracy theories. Neil stated:
"There are too many people running around out there who are certain of everything they believe and will harm other people who don't agree with them. History shows, the less evidence you have in support of your belief system, the more likely you are to go to war over what that belief system represents.
You won't find legions of scientists taking a hill because some scientists are claiming,
'No, it’s E = mc³!' while others insist, 'No, it’s E = mc²!'. This is not how that works, okay"?
He continues, "When something is supported by evidence, opinions become irrelevant. Objective truths tested, measured, and established by science -science doesn’t care how passionately you feel about it. Whatever I think is true or not true is in direct proportion to the strength or the intensity to which I think something is true or not true - is in proportion to the evidence that exists in support or in denial of the thing".
My takeaways:
- Certainty without evidence, confidence is more arrogance dressed as conviction.
- Wisdom leaves room for doubt. Intelligence scales belief to proof. And, intelligence is not wisdom - wisdom comes from experience, intelligence comes from books. Anyone can be intelligent, not everyone is wise.
- And truth doesn’t need a war to defend it - it just needs evidence (and neither eyewitness accounts nor your opinion are scientific evidence).
- Neil doesn't say it’s impossible. He just says if there’s no evidence, there's no real proof of truth it seems (scientifically) foolish to believe it and defend it without evidence.
- I should mention this was not a discussion about faith and/or religion.
Comments(8)