sponsored links
TEDGlobal 2009

David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation

July 23, 2009

For tens of thousands of years our ancestors understood the world through myths, and the pace of change was glacial. The rise of scientific understanding transformed the world within a few centuries. Why? Physicist David Deutsch proposes a subtle answer.

David Deutsch - Quantum physicist
David Deutsch's 1997 book "The Fabric of Reality" laid the groundwork for an all-encompassing Theory of Everything, and galvanized interest in the idea of a quantum computer, which could solve problems of hitherto unimaginable complexity. Full bio

sponsored links
Double-click the English subtitles below to play the video.
I'm sure that, throughout the hundred-thousand-odd years
00:18
of our species' existence,
00:23
and even before,
00:26
our ancestors looked up at the night sky,
00:29
and wondered what stars are.
00:31
Wondering, therefore,
00:34
how to explain what they saw
00:36
in terms of things unseen.
00:40
Okay, so, most people
00:45
only wondered that occasionally, like today,
00:49
in breaks from whatever
00:52
normally preoccupied them.
00:54
But what normally preoccupied them
00:56
also involved yearning to know.
01:00
They wished they knew
01:03
how to prevent their food supply
01:06
from sometimes failing,
01:08
and how they could rest when they were tired
01:10
without risking starvation,
01:13
be warmer, cooler, safer,
01:17
in less pain.
01:21
I bet those prehistoric cave artists
01:23
would have loved to know
01:26
how to draw better.
01:28
In every aspect of their lives,
01:30
they wished for progress, just as we do.
01:35
But they failed, almost completely, to make any.
01:40
They didn't know how to.
01:46
Discoveries like fire
01:49
happened so rarely, that from an individual's point of view,
01:53
the world never improved.
01:57
Nothing new was learned.
02:00
The first clue to the origin of starlight
02:04
happened as recently as 1899: radioactivity.
02:07
Within 40 years,
02:14
physicists discovered the whole explanation,
02:16
expressed, as usual, in elegant symbols.
02:20
But never mind the symbols.
02:25
Think how many discoveries
02:27
they represent.
02:31
Nuclei and nuclear reactions, of course.
02:33
But isotopes, particles of electricity,
02:36
antimatter,
02:43
neutrinos,
02:47
the conversion of mass to energy -- that's E=mc^2 --
02:49
gamma rays,
02:53
transmutation.
02:55
That ancient dream that had always eluded the alchemists
02:59
was achieved through these same theories
03:04
that explained starlight
03:06
and other ancient mysteries,
03:08
and new, unexpected phenomena.
03:11
That all that, discovered in 40 years,
03:14
had not been in the previous hundred thousand,
03:18
was not for lack of thinking
03:21
about stars, and all those other urgent problems they had.
03:25
They even arrived at answers,
03:29
such as myths,
03:32
that dominated their lives,
03:34
yet bore almost no resemblance
03:36
to the truth.
03:40
The tragedy of that protracted stagnation
03:42
isn't sufficiently recognized, I think.
03:47
These were people with brains of
03:49
essentially the same design
03:51
that eventually did discover all those things.
03:54
But that ability to make progress
03:59
remained almost unused,
04:03
until the event that
04:06
revolutionized the human condition
04:09
and changed the universe.
04:11
Or so we should hope.
04:13
Because that event was the
04:15
Scientific Revolution,
04:17
ever since which our knowledge
04:19
of the physical world,
04:21
and of how to adapt it to our wishes,
04:23
has been growing relentlessly.
04:27
Now, what had changed?
04:29
What were people now doing for the first time
04:32
that made that difference
04:34
between stagnation
04:36
and rapid, open-ended discovery?
04:38
How to make that difference
04:42
is surely the most important universal truth
04:44
that it is possible to know.
04:48
Worryingly, there is no consensus about what it is.
04:50
So, I'll tell you.
04:55
But I'll have to backtrack a little first.
04:57
Before the Scientific Revolution,
05:01
they believed that everything important, knowable,
05:04
was already known,
05:07
enshrined in ancient writings, institutions,
05:09
and in some genuinely useful rules of thumb --
05:12
which were, however, entrenched as dogmas,
05:15
along with many falsehoods.
05:19
So they believed that knowledge came from authorities
05:21
that actually knew very little.
05:25
And therefore progress
05:28
depended on learning how to reject
05:31
the authority of learned men,
05:34
priests, traditions and rulers.
05:37
Which is why the Scientific Revolution
05:41
had to have a wider context.
05:44
The Enlightenment, a revolution in how
05:46
people sought knowledge,
05:50
trying not to rely on authority.
05:53
"Take no one's word for it."
05:56
But that can't be what made the difference.
05:58
Authorities had been rejected before, many times.
06:02
And that rarely, if ever,
06:04
caused anything like the Scientific Revolution.
06:06
At the time, what they thought
06:10
distinguished science
06:12
was a radical idea about things unseen,
06:14
known as empiricism.
06:18
All knowledge derives from the senses.
06:21
Well, we've seen that that can't be true.
06:26
It did help by promoting
06:29
observation and experiment.
06:33
But, from the outset, it was obvious
06:35
that there was something horribly wrong with it.
06:37
Knowledge comes from the senses.
06:40
In what language? Certainly not the language of mathematics,
06:42
in which, Galileo rightly said,
06:45
the book of nature is written.
06:48
Look at the world. You don't see equations
06:51
carved on to the mountainsides.
06:54
If you did, it would be because people
06:57
had carved them.
06:59
By the way, why don't we do that?
07:01
What's wrong with us?
07:04
(Laughter)
07:06
Empiricism is inadequate
07:07
because, well,
07:09
scientific theories explain the seen in terms of the unseen.
07:11
And the unseen, you have to admit,
07:16
doesn't come to us through the senses.
07:18
We don't see those nuclear reactions in stars.
07:20
We don't see the origin of species.
07:24
We don't see the curvature of space-time,
07:27
and other universes.
07:31
But we know about those things.
07:33
How?
07:36
Well, the classic empiricist answer is induction.
07:38
The unseen resembles the seen.
07:43
But it doesn't.
07:47
You know what the clinching evidence was
07:49
that space-time is curved?
07:51
It was a photograph, not of space-time,
07:54
but of an eclipse, with a dot there rather than there.
07:57
And the evidence for evolution?
08:01
Some rocks and some finches.
08:03
And parallel universes? Again: dots there,
08:06
rather than there, on a screen.
08:09
What we see, in all these cases,
08:11
bears no resemblance to the reality
08:14
that we conclude is responsible --
08:18
only a long chain of theoretical reasoning
08:20
and interpretation connects them.
08:24
"Ah!" say creationists.
08:26
"So you admit it's all interpretation.
08:29
No one has ever seen evolution.
08:31
We see rocks.
08:34
You have your interpretation. We have ours.
08:36
Yours comes from guesswork,
08:39
ours from the Bible."
08:41
But what creationist and empiricists both ignore
08:43
is that, in that sense,
08:49
no one has ever seen a bible either,
08:51
that the eye only detects light, which we don't perceive.
08:54
Brains only detect nerve impulses.
08:58
And they don't perceive even those as what they really are,
09:01
namely electrical crackles.
09:04
So we perceive nothing as what it really is.
09:06
Our connection to reality
09:11
is never just perception.
09:14
It's always, as Karl Popper put it,
09:16
theory-laden.
09:20
Scientific knowledge isn't derived from anything.
09:23
It's like all knowledge. It's conjectural, guesswork,
09:26
tested by observation,
09:31
not derived from it.
09:33
So, were testable conjectures
09:37
the great innovation that opened the intellectual prison gates?
09:40
No. Contrary to what's usually said,
09:44
testability is common,
09:47
in myths and all sorts of other irrational modes of thinking.
09:49
Any crank claiming the sun will go out next Tuesday
09:53
has got a testable prediction.
09:57
Consider the ancient Greek myth
10:00
explaining seasons.
10:03
Hades, God of the Underworld,
10:06
kidnaps Persephone, the Goddess of Spring,
10:08
and negotiates a forced marriage contract,
10:11
requiring her to return regularly, and lets her go.
10:14
And each year,
10:18
she is magically compelled to return.
10:20
And her mother, Demeter,
10:23
Goddess of the Earth,
10:25
is sad, and makes it cold and barren.
10:27
That myth is testable.
10:32
If winter is caused by Demeter's sadness,
10:35
then it must happen everywhere on Earth simultaneously.
10:39
So if the ancient Greeks had only known that Australia
10:43
is at its warmest when Demeter is at her saddest,
10:46
they'd have known that their theory is false.
10:50
So what was wrong with that myth,
10:53
and with all pre-scientific thinking,
10:56
and what, then, made that momentous difference?
10:59
I think there is one thing you have to care about.
11:04
And that implies
11:08
testability, the scientific method,
11:10
the Enlightenment, and everything.
11:13
And here is the crucial thing.
11:15
There is such a thing as a defect in a story.
11:17
I don't just mean a logical defect. I mean a bad explanation.
11:20
What does that mean? Well, explanation
11:25
is an assertion about what's there, unseen,
11:28
that accounts for what's seen.
11:31
Because the explanatory role
11:34
of Persephone's marriage contract
11:37
could be played equally well
11:39
by infinitely many other
11:41
ad hoc entities.
11:43
Why a marriage contract and not any other reason
11:45
for regular annual action?
11:48
Here is one. Persephone wasn't released.
11:52
She escaped, and returns every spring
11:55
to take revenge on Hades,
11:59
with her Spring powers.
12:01
She cools his domain with Spring air,
12:03
venting heat up to the surface, creating summer.
12:08
That accounts for the same phenomena as the original myth.
12:12
It's equally testable.
12:16
Yet what it asserts about reality
12:19
is, in many ways, the opposite.
12:22
And that is possible because
12:24
the details of the original myth
12:26
are unrelated to seasons,
12:29
except via the myth itself.
12:31
This easy variability
12:35
is the sign of a bad explanation,
12:38
because, without a functional reason to prefer
12:42
one of countless variants,
12:46
advocating one of them, in preference to the others,
12:51
is irrational.
12:53
So, for the essence of what
12:55
makes the difference to enable progress,
12:57
seek good explanations,
13:00
the ones that can't be easily varied,
13:02
while still explaining the phenomena.
13:05
Now, our current explanation of seasons
13:10
is that the Earth's axis is tilted like that,
13:13
so each hemisphere tilts toward the sun for half the year,
13:17
and away for the other half.
13:20
Better put that up.
13:23
(Laughter)
13:25
That's a good explanation: hard to vary,
13:26
because every detail plays a functional role.
13:31
For instance, we know, independently of seasons,
13:34
that surfaces tilted away
13:37
from radiant heat are heated less,
13:39
and that a spinning sphere, in space,
13:42
points in a constant direction.
13:45
And the tilt also explains
13:48
the sun's angle of elevation at different times of year,
13:51
and predicts that the seasons
13:55
will be out of phase in the two hemispheres.
13:57
If they'd been observed in phase,
14:00
the theory would have been refuted.
14:02
But now, the fact that it's also a good explanation,
14:04
hard to vary, makes the crucial difference.
14:09
If the ancient Greeks had found out
14:14
about seasons in Australia,
14:16
they could have easily varied their myth
14:19
to predict that.
14:21
For instance, when Demeter is upset,
14:23
she banishes heat from her vicinity,
14:25
into the other hemisphere, where it makes summer.
14:28
So, being proved wrong by observation,
14:31
and changing their theory accordingly,
14:34
still wouldn't have got the ancient Greeks
14:36
one jot closer to understanding seasons,
14:39
because their explanation was bad: easy to vary.
14:42
And it's only when an explanation is good
14:45
that it even matters whether it's testable.
14:48
If the axis-tilt theory had been refuted,
14:50
its defenders would have had nowhere to go.
14:53
No easily implemented change
14:55
could make that tilt
14:58
cause the same seasons in both hemispheres.
15:00
The search for hard-to-vary explanations
15:05
is the origin of all progress.
15:08
It's the basic regulating principle
15:11
of the Enlightenment.
15:14
So, in science, two false approaches blight progress.
15:16
One is well known: untestable theories.
15:20
But the more important one is explanationless theories.
15:23
Whenever you're told that some existing statistical trend will continue,
15:27
but you aren't given a hard-to-vary account
15:31
of what causes that trend,
15:34
you're being told a wizard did it.
15:37
When you are told that carrots have human rights
15:39
because they share half our genes --
15:42
but not how gene percentages confer rights -- wizard.
15:44
When someone announces that the nature-nurture debate
15:50
has been settled because there is evidence
15:54
that a given percentage of our
15:56
political opinions are genetically inherited,
15:58
but they don't explain how genes cause opinions,
16:02
they've settled nothing. They are saying that our
16:06
opinions are caused by wizards,
16:08
and presumably so are their own.
16:10
That the truth consists of
16:13
hard to vary assertions about reality
16:16
is the most important fact
16:20
about the physical world.
16:23
It's a fact that is, itself, unseen,
16:25
yet impossible to vary. Thank you.
16:28
(Applause)
16:32

sponsored links

David Deutsch - Quantum physicist
David Deutsch's 1997 book "The Fabric of Reality" laid the groundwork for an all-encompassing Theory of Everything, and galvanized interest in the idea of a quantum computer, which could solve problems of hitherto unimaginable complexity.

Why you should listen

David Deutsch will force you to reconsider your place in the world. This legendary Oxford physicist is the leading proponent of the multiverse (or "many worlds") interpretation of quantum theory -- the idea that our universe is constantly spawning countless numbers of parallel worlds.

In his own words: "Everything in our universe -- including you and me, every atom and every galaxy -- has counterparts in these other universes." If that doesn't alter your consciousness, then the other implications he's derived from his study of subatomic physics -- including the possibility of time travel -- just might.

In The Fabric of Reality, Deutsch tied together quantum mechanics, evolution, a rationalist approach to knowledge, and a theory of computation based on the work of Alan Turing. "Our best theories are not only truer than common sense, they make more sense than common sense,"Deutsch wrote, and he continues to explore the most mind-bending aspects of particle physics.

In 2008, he became a member of the Royal Society of London.
 

The original video is available on TED.com
sponsored links

If you need translations, you can install "Google Translate" extension into your Chrome Browser.
Furthermore, you can change playback rate by installing "Video Speed Controller" extension.

Data provided by TED.

This website is owned and operated by Tokyo English Network.
The developer's blog is here.