Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Neil Tyson heeft het over UFO's en het argument uit onwetendheid.

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Somebody in the audience: Do you believe in UFO's or extra-terrestrial visitors? Neil Tyson: Do I believe in UFOs? Or extra-terrestrial visitors? I'm not authorized to answer that question. Where shall I begin? Erm... UFO! First: remember what the U stands for in UFO. Now, there's a fascinating frailty of the human mind, that psychologists know all about, and it's called 'argument from ignorance'. And this is how it goes. Ready? Somebody sees a light flashing in the sky. They've never seen it before. They don't understand what it is. They say: "A UFO!" The U stands for: unidentified. So they say: "I don't know what it is! It must be aliens from outer space, visiting from another planet." Well. If you don't know what it is, that's where your conversation should stop. (Laughter) You know, they say: "It must be anything." OK? That's what argument from ignorance is. It's common. I'm not blaming anybody. Psychologists know all about it. And it may relate to our burning need to have to know stuff. Because we're uncomfortable, steeped in ignorance. You can't be a scientist if you're uncomfortable with ignorance. Because we live at the boundary of the known and the unknown in the universe. Unlike journalists, right? You've seen journalists - any journalists here? - You are a journalist!? (laughs) You are a journalist! All articles about science have got to begin: "Science has now to go back to the drawing board!" As if we're always sitting like this, you know. Masters of the universe! Oops! Somebody discovered something. No, they're always at the drawing board. If you're not at the drawing board, you're not making discoveries. You're something else. So, the public - it appears - seems to have this burning need to have to have an answer to what is unknown. So you go from an abject statement of ignorance to an abject statement of certainty. So, that is operating within us. That started it. Second: We know, not only from research in psychology but from simple empirical evidence from the history of science, that the lowest form of evidence, that exists in this world, is eyewitness testimony. Would you see that's some of the highest form of evidence in the court of law. But we know from second grade - where is my guy from second grade? Get a microphone for him. There's the microphone. In your classes have you done the experiment, will you play telephone? And you line up all kids in class and one pupil starts with a story and you hear it and you repeat it to the next person and the next... Have you done that in class yet? Boy: Yes. NT: [unclear] What happened by the time you get to the last person? If he tells the story. What happened? Boy: It's like completely different. NT shouts: IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!! IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!! OK? Because the conveyance of information was relying on eyewitness testimony, which in that case is 'earwitness' testimony. And so - thank you - so, we know that. He knows it in second grade. Allright. So, actually he should be in twelfth grade [unclear] So now, it wouldn't matter if you saw a flying saucer. In science, even if you have something less controversial than a flying saucer, if you come into my lab and you say: "You got to believe me, I saw it! " And you were one of my fellow scientists, I'd say: "Go home! Come back if you have some other kind of evidence." It's not just, "you saw it". OK. Because human perception system is rife with all ways of getting it wrong. OK. But we don't like thinking of ourselves that way. We have high opinions of our human biology. Which, in effect, we should not. I give you an example how we deal with this stuff. We've all bought and enjoyed books called ... erm ... 'Optical Illusions?'. Right? Well, we all know about optical illusions. But that's what they should call the books, they should call them 'Brain Failures'! OK? That's what it is! There's a complete failure of human perception. Allright? It only takes a few sketches, cleverly done, and your brain can't figure it out. Allright? So, we are poor data-taking devices. That's why we have such a thing as 'science'. Because we have machines that don't care what side of the bed they woke up in the morning, don't care what they said to the spouse that day don't care if they had had their morning café, will get the data right. So, maybe you did see visitors from another part of the galaxy. I need more than your eyewitness testimony. And in modern times I need more than your photograph. Photoshop has even a UFO-button today... (Laughter) ... on your computer. So... Here's what you do: On the saying we have been visited, I'm saying the evidence does thus far brought fore does not satisfy the standards of evidence that any scientist would require for any other claim that you're going to walk into the laboratory. Here's what I recommend. Next time you're abducted - I'm ready for it - OK? I get abducted? I'm ready. OK? So you're there. You're like on a slab - because they want to do sex experiments on you - So there you are. And they're poking at you. So here is what you do. You're ready? You tell the alien - you're the alien for this, right? So, you're poking me. All right? So OK. Man: I'm on his side for this. NT: So I say: "Hey, Look over there! And when he looks over there, you quickly snatch something off the shelf, put it in the pocket and than lie back. All right? When you've done, you come back. You say: "Look what I've got. I like stole the ashtray off the shelf of the flying saucer." And then you bring that to the lab. It's not only an eyewitness testimony, because you have something an alien manufactured. And anything you pull off of a flying saucer, that crossed the galaxy, is going to be interesting. OK? Because even objects within our own culture... - I got this device here, OK? The Iphone. 10 years ago they would have resurrected the witch burning laws, if you pulled this thing out. And that's in our own culture. Our own culture produced this over a 10 year span. So if this is some technology that crossed the galaxy That is some serious stuff to look at in the lab. Then we can have the conversation. Until than I can't. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Keep trying to find them. I'm not gonna stop you. But get ready for that time you're abducted, because I will be looking for that evidence when that happens. And a last point on that. There are people who are looking up all the time. Like for example the community of amateurs astronomers in the world. I was an amateur astronomer. We come out of a building, we look up. Doesn't matter what we're looking at. UFO sightings are not higher among amateur astronomers than they are in the general public. In fact they are lower. You say, why is that so? But we know what the hell we're looking at. Because we study this stuff. Do you know there was a UFO sighting reported by a police officer because we think that when you have a badge or you're a pilot or whatever, then you're testimony is better than when you're an average person It's all bad, because we're humans. OK? So, there was a police officer who was tracking a UFO, that was swaying back and forth in the sky. The car was chasing the UFO. And the UFO moving back and forth like this. Later it turned out the cob car was chasing Venus. And he was driving on a curved road. But was so distracted by Venus he thought Venus was the one moving and he wasn't even thinking he was doing this.

Video Details

Duration: 9 minutes and 36 seconds
Country: United States
Language: English
Views: 624
Posted by: ridelo on Jul 17, 2011

Neil Tyson heeft het over UFO's en het argument uit onwetendheid.

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.