 Werddw I yw rydych yn fydd ei wneud o ddegwch sy'n gweithio. Oetherwydd y Ffordgenedigol wedi eu pradysgol o'r cyfnodd archeers. Fyddyn ni'n mynd ei parwysgol ar ddegwch nodi. A dyma'r rhaid i ddangos cymryd y maedd i'r cyfnodd yma ychydig sy'n cael ei weld i fuddodol? Felly iddo nid gweithio dweudio ar yr entrygwynebu ar y cwmhysgol. Felly, yma'r ddegwch wedi gweithio ar gyfer oedd eidirelau mewn deillur, Wrth y gwbl gwirio'r gwirio cwilio ar gyfer gyda'r ymweld, mae'n ddiweddio'r ddod i'r cyflwyno ar gyflwyno ar gyfer gwaith. Rwy'n credu i'r ddod o'r cynhyfodd, fel y gallwn y lleolau yn Davos, fel y gallwn y lleolau sydd yn gorfodd yma, yn ogylcheddol i'r cyflwyno ar gyflwyno, mae'n gweithio'n ddod i'r cyflwyno ar gyflwyno. Mae'n cyflwyno'r cyflwyno ar gyflwyno a'r cyflwyno ar gyflwyno. ..y'r unig ysgol yw'r cyffredin. Mae'n rhaid i'r rhaid i'r rhaid i'r cyffredin. Rhaid i'n rhaid i'r cyffredin. Rhyw gwaith i'r cyffredin. Lysus ynddo, mae'r cyffredin. Mae'r profesiad ym Mhwyl, ym Ysgol, ym Ysgol, ym Ysgol... ..y'r cyffredin yn y Cymru. Mae'r cyffredin yn y Cymru. Robert Deych Gryff, ym Ysgol, a'r profesiad Leon Levy... ..y'r cyffredin erioedol, dwi'n dynnu'r Awr, ym Ysgol. Ym corelliannol ym Ysgol , am Llyfrgell Ysgrimd Llyfrgell. Ym yn ym Mhwyl, yn y Cymru. Ayodol, Robert, ddim yn ym Mhwyl, ym Cymru, fe eau'r pob, mae'r cyffredin syniad syniadau syniadau a'r cyffredin. Felly, i wneud ei wneud eu cyfinsiwn. Mae'r cyffredin syniadau syniadau syniadau syniad... ..y may ydyw gwelio, bydd hi'n cyffredin.. ..en mynd i'r blaiddau sy'n sydd ymgyrch. Mae sectorau ar y cyfnodau ac ar gyfer cyfnodau.. ..yna'r ysgol yma yn rhoi? Roedd y gallais ymddangos o'r cyffredd.. ..yna'r gymryd o hynny yn llawd. Mae'r ysgrifennu yw'r angen. Mae'n rhaid i'r cyflwyno i'r cyflwyno yn ysgrifennu.. ..i'r cyflwyno i'r llawd yn llawd yma.. ..yna'r cyflwyno yn gwyllwyd.. ..u'r cyflwyno'n llawd yn llawd yn llwydd yn llwydd. mae'r cyfgau ddysgol yn ymdill gydag ymddangos hwn o unrhyw hwn o'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd ymdill. Mae'r cyfnodd ymdill yn cyfnodd ymdill. A'r cyfnodd, yn ddigon ni, yn ymdill gafod o'r ddweud sy'n gyfnodd gweithio'r gwybod tiynau i'r dyfodol. A'r ddweudio'r dyfodol efallai'r gyfnodd llyfr yn gwneud o'r ffordd a'r ffordd yn gwneud o'r ddweud. Ac mae o'i elunol yn ei ddweud, fe o enthymiddio saith yr ydy'r elunol yn ei ddweud. Mae gydag o gyd, o gydag o'r ffordd, o gydag o'r ffordd o ffordd, o gydag o'r ffordd, o gydag o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd. Mae gydag o'r ffordd, o gydag o'r ffordd o'r ffordd, o'r ffordd o'r gydag o'r ffordd. Felly mae'r cwisio'r gwerth o gael gyda'i cyflaen mewn i weld gyda 90% ganddoedd o'r cyfrifiadu. Rydyn ni'n rydyn ni'n gallu gyda'i cyfrifiadau. Rydyn ni'n gael o'r plant yn gael, rwy'n golygu'r gael, mae'r cyfrifiadau yn awr yn 10% mae hwnnw o blwyddiol. Dyma'r rhaid i'r ddweud yn gweithio. Ac mae'n gallu'n cerddwysgreddion nag yma gan ymlaen i gweithio. Mae'n cael ei wneud hynny sydd gennym ei wneud yr wych yn ddod i gweithio. Dwi'n cael o gynnyddio'r pethau newydd gwiriaeth cymrydau gwiriaeth cymrydol yn grid, sy'n meddwl ar hyn o gychwyn oherwydd gyda'r cymrydd cyfrydd. Mae'n meddwl am gyfer gallu cyfryd wedyn anghyddio'n meddwl. Felly, yna buffes. I'm fascinated by the suggestion that, as we all become protoscientists, the more knowledge we acquire, the more we are inclined to get wrong. Yes, well there's something, and I must say that another interesting element of this is that we can debate this, but the wonderful thing is that no scientist can also study this. So people are studying how we communicate science, how we are dealing with these issues, and one counterintuitive fact, but it seems to be quite universal, is that if you learn more about it, your opinions harden. So the most obvious solution to this to many scientists is, well I just spread more information, explain it to you again, and again, and again, and again. But this seems to have kind of an adverse effect. So it's something that we have to address probably in a smarter way, and I hope that the other scientists, and this is of course myself a physicist, this is something that social scientists, et cetera, study communication scientists. So I think as a whole scientific body is something that we probably can find smarter ways to counter these forces, which I feel will only grow in time. That's really important. We'll come to how to address here by first, please. What's your experience on the medical side of the debate? Well, I think that in addition to the more you know, the more solidified your belief system gets, I think there's also like a growing sort of skepticism about what the authorities say. There's sort of an anti-authoritarianism, even as we move towards authoritarianism in my country, but there's a kind of a distrust of authority that makes people go, oh yeah, I don't think so. That I don't really understand where it's coming from, but you certainly see it all the time. When you look at vaccines, it's been well studied. The more you try to educate people when they've done studies, the less likely they are to change their minds. And actually some people move from being, oh sure, vaccines are fine. Everybody does it too. Oh, I don't know. Maybe I don't want to have my child vaccinated with the application of more information. So I don't think we really understand how this all works, but it's certainly having a devastating effect on all of us. And I encourage as much interaction as possible. Those of you watching live online, I've taken some questions from Twitter this morning, but please if you have any questions or disagree, we'd love disagreement, please do stick your hand up. Or all these are perhaps just in a unique moment in history where the whole mushrooming of the digital world has caught everybody's surprise, and there are just so many ways to manipulate people's opinions that maybe those loopholes will get closed. I was reading, of course, my preparation. YouTube, I believe it, it is that said it's dropped a number of fake referrals by 50% in the past year. Fact checkers are being recruited en masse by the big social media platforms. So it seems maybe there is a plan in place, and this is just a unique period of history where we're just struggling to, as always, catch up with people who are finding ways of abusing and exploiting frailties in our digital ecosystem. I think that's absolutely right, and I think that you have to be pretty sophisticated to tell the difference between what's true in science and the people who set out fake stuff in science. I mean, they have like, they come from different institutes, and they're published in all these different papers, and they have all these fancy letters after their names. So they look like, they use the right language or language that sounds scientific, so they have a simulacrum of reality or truth that is not true. Well, it's also good to realize that we have been here before, right? Before the advent of modern science, everything was fake science. Now we call it alchemy or whatever, and you see when the printing press came, we think, oh wow, this now certainly authorized knowledge was distributed, but actually there was like an incredible amount of spam in the 16th and 17th century. There were pamphlets with obscure texts. A very, very minute fraction was Newton's Wikipedia or something. And exactly what you were just saying happened, of course. There was a kind of weaving out process, and a scientific literature was established. So, and in retrospect, we say wonderful, because before that, there was a very dogmatic point of view. So the fact that people were challenged to think for themselves, that the scientific method showed them, well, you can actually see with your own eyes how things work instead of just hearing. In math, we sometimes talk about proof by intimidation, and I think that's a very bad way to present science. So I think there are some kind of correcting mechanisms, but it was a painful process. And in some sense, the communication means have been disrupted again. One of my colleagues had this wonderful phrase that the problem with the global village are the global village idiots. And so they now can spread now. And so right what you say, you know, it's sometimes very clever. They pick the acronyms, which are close cousins of the established organizations. And I must say also the media play a very important role, because often these things are discussed in a way where media feels that should be kind of two-sided, so it should give a fair chance. So on one hand, you would have, say, 98% of all climate scientists, and it will be representative who has to obey to the rules that science imposes. So be very careful with your statements. On the other side, there's somebody who's like completely devoid of the facts and can play as dirty as you want. And it's a debate. And I would say almost invariably such a debate ends in a draw, which actually will be a loss for science. And I find very refreshing that now some news organizations have decided to think to be busy recently. We're not always going to show the other side, because that's kind of complete nonsense. If we debate gravity, you're not asking an anti-gravity person to sit on the other side and talk about whatever crazy ideas. We just know it's a law of nature. I can't tell whether it's just the media or if it really is a proliferation of people who believe in crazy things. This whole flat earth thing, it's hard to imagine how anybody could go for that. And maybe it's really only two people who know how to manipulate the media. Maybe they tell a better story than the scientists. Maybe it's more interesting to believe this nonsense. Maybe you guys aren't telling the story correct. And I can't believe that it's only commercial interests that drive this. Certainly in climate change, there are people who obviously have a lot to lose. But like anti-vax, who's profiting from that really? One guy, his study still got kicked out of the journal. If you go to that page, you can see it has a big stamp over it that says discredited. Vaccinations, I'm not at all an expert, but I find it kind of an interesting debate. Because some people say, well, wait a moment, there are many other viruses, etc. Should we vaccinate against everything and are there some unintended consequences? So they put some question marks. I think putting the question marks is fine. But for instance, measles is a good example. You know much more about it. That reasoned insight showed that if you get a measle, if you survive, it's basically a total reset of your immune system. So it has devastating consequences. So you can say, well, whatever your doubts are, there are a few vaccines that you should take anyhow, because you can make the case much stronger. So I think there's this kind of natural quest that people have. They're doubting, they're questioning certain elements. I think as a scientific community, we can have real balanced and meaningful answers to that. Right, and of course measles is a great example, because that is the most contagious disease that I know of. If somebody breathes or sneezes in a room, those measle viruses stay airborne for hours. Nobody else, no other disease does that. So there's one person in a room with 100 other people, then there's a very good chance that 10 of those people are going to get the measles. That's insane. So if you're going to make, and I think that that's a reasonable way to go, I'm sorry I gave my kids the chicken pox vaccine, because of course now that they're in their 20s, it's not working. So there are some things that were less useful, but measles, tetanus, mums. I mean the reason that people were at least initially against it, doing it, because why do we need it? Nobody has these things anymore. Well, that is not the case now. Tuff of questions. We're kind of reaching the halfway stage. Anyone? Gentleman here, please. Thank you. Hi, my name is Alejandro, medical doctor from Colombia, and part of the global shapers community in Colombia. So I wanted to touch on the point on the cultural differences, and maybe the differences on critical pricing science between high income countries and middle and low income countries, because it seems that for some of the anti-vaccine movement that could be very much an issue of high income countries. So what are your takes on these differences between these cultural backgrounds? Good point. Cultural differences. I know for instance there's a lot of research being done with global warming and the attitudes there. And it's quite remarkable. So there are two things you can measure. How much people are aware of the issues, and how much they feel that action should be taken. And if you look around the globe, you see all possible combinations. For instance, one thing we see typically in the global south that people initially are less aware of it. But the moment they become aware, they also want to take action. So there's very little climate skepticism. I think countries, I think like Latin America and Japan, they are both aware and they want to take action. North America is in some sense really an exception to the rule. And even I think within Europe you see local differences. So in that sense we think that science is a universal language. So we are describing a universal effect, namely how that language is learned and appreciated. You're quite right to point out that a lot of cultural differences. So I think if you want to address these issues, we also have to be aware of what the local culture is. Culture in terms of, you know, in some sense it's very history dependent. How people, what their position of science is in a particular country or community. How people should be addressed. How they feel with respect to authority. So I strongly feel this has a very regional and cultural coloring, both in the effect and how it has to be addressed. And I think we did a pretty poor job in many cases of introducing, trying to sell the idea of vaccines. We just thought we're big, we're America, we're Europe, we're scientists. This is the right thing to do and just said we should do this. And then funding, you know, programs to vaccinate everybody without really thinking about these people have opinions of their own. And we have to convince people that it's the right thing to do. We can't just say do this and expect them to jump because I believe that we have a history that's filled with wickedness, you know, in the past. And so people are maybe rightfully skeptical and I think we didn't do a good job, a good enough job of convincing people. Perhaps it's an element of data literacy here as well. Maybe the more informed you are about spotting fake news online or misinformation online. Maybe that kind of digital literacy is going to be a big help in addressing such concerns as pseudoscience in less developed parts of the world. Maybe, but you know, there's a lot of research that says we believe things not because we're convinced by the science because we don't really, you know, in medicine in particular, we're terrible at math. I mean, so we pretend like we have these conversations about evidence-based medicine, but we don't really do that, we don't really feel comfortable with the math. So I think that it's been difficult, you know, and I don't know, I forgot what I was going to say. I actually want to kind of almost use the metaphor of vaccines or vaccinations and viruses a little bit because I think part of all of this is kind of building kind of an intellectual immune system. You know, we have to be able to react to this kind of infiltration of fake news. And one thing I think we can learn from political scientists, they've studied various kind of environments and they've found that environments that are pluralistic where you, like in the US, would both watch CNN and Fox News and where people in some sense have to kind of exercise their brains, if I can say it like that, have to critical thinking that they are more politically engaged. So that's a one-to-one correlation. And I feel that perhaps we have been a bit negligent also, I think, from the scientific community to build that immune system. I mean, in some sense we have almost done what, you know, leaving children in a sterile environment. We think if you just are fed the fact that you will appreciate science, I think that you need a certain kind of messiness. I think you have to train people in their critical thinking because whatever is happening now with these topics of anti-vaxxers or climate deniers, there will be a next crisis, there will be a next topic. And people are equally ignorant. So the good thing of, you know, vaccinations or having an infection is that you build up antibodies to resist the next. And I think that's something that we have to do. So it's something much broader than this one topic. So I don't think by just learning more about the climate or learning more about the body will immunize ourselves to the next debate which might be about AI or about quantum technology or something that has to be invented. But there are some kind of general skills which I think, again, go to the heart of science is to actually look at the evidence, think critically about it, deal with uncertainties. And that should be part of our literacy and indeed dealing with data is a crucial part of that. Let me just kind of think about what you said earlier about the kind of proto-scientists and the more balance you give, the more ambiguity you create and the more room for people to be fed the wrong conclusion or draw the wrong conclusion too. So getting that balance right. Can you think of successful examples of where beliefs have been successfully shifted or influenced behavior have been influenced successfully. And have you been able to identify why and what has been done differently in those situations in either of your respective fields? I think tobacco clearly took a long time. It took a long time. It took a long time. It took a lot of lives. But I think that there's no one who thinks that the tobacco companies were right. And it took a lot of stuff coming out from their records through lawsuits. But I think your idea of an intellectual immune system is a really powerful metaphor because one of the things we know is that people don't actually form their own opinions. They sort of take on the opinions of the people around them. And if you could maybe try to deal with it on that sort of metaphorical level, you know, when I was a kid we used to have chicken pox parties. So they would, whoever had the chicken pox, there would be a party at their house and then we'd all get the chicken pox. And I wonder if there's a way to sort of identify people who are going to be the right people to spread a message in targeting those people rather than trying to target everybody because even people who want to understand numbers and science and all that literature, it's going to be hard for them. It's hard for me. So there's got to be a way to spread it in a different way. So you're talking about, you know, recruiting influences to help spread that message. Oh my God, how terrible. Yes, I think I am. I mean, in some sense, we're saying that fake scientists learn from science and they try to replicate at least in a superficial way, but we can clearly also learn from what's successful in spreading fake science. I must say to push the discussion a little bit to the negative perhaps. The thing I worry about is that there are two things we certainly know that science will progress and it will dig deeper and it will be more complicated. So it will be more difficult to understand. The science in 100 years will probably be totally unknowledgeable from the present point of view and yet at the same time its impact will be bigger because of all that details. So the big risk is that we're moving to society that's completely ignorant and totally in the grip of science. And so that gap, that knowledge gap, that human gap has to be bridged. And so we have to really think of building that bridge. I think it's not just the general public on one side and the scientists on the other side. I think we need intermediaries. We have to think about how to spread the knowledge, how to educate. Certainly I think from the point of view of science, we need kind of bridgeheads on the other side, people in the media, people in policy that are willing to play these roles. And I think there's a lot of knowledge in people who build the digital infrastructure, who know about communications, etc. That can help. In the end I think these processes could help also to bridge that gap, which is actually I think very fearsome development. Let's just very little time left, which is a great show because we're only just getting started. This is fascinating. But let's just think about the role of government here in the world clunky old-fashioned top-down approach of regulation, for example. So we think more and more countries making a vaccination legally enforceable and enforcing it. Is that going to be effective? Well, you know one of the things that happened with vaccination in this country is that the number of exceptions grew and grew and grew. And then there's so you can get it for religious and personal reasons, all kinds of reasons that you can choose not to get your children vaccinated. And the more exceptions there are, the fewer the children are that get vaccinated. There is one state, it's either Mississippi or Alabama, they're next to each other and I get them confused, that long ago said everybody has to be vaccinated before they start public schools, no exceptions period. And they have the highest rate of vaccination in the country. And this is a place that's not well known for their education, for their valuing of science. It was just a rule, everybody did it. And so I think that there is a role for government to be inflexible like that. We have this good that you want to participate in, public education. This is the price you have to pay for it. I totally agree. One of the sometimes really depressing thought is that we have to fight this battle again and again. Whether it's not talking mostly about climate change and vaccinations, but we had tobacco, we had nuclear energy and so many issues. And unfortunately I think it's sometimes also in the scientific community, it's siloed. So the stories and the methods and the experience are not shared. But also think about tobacco, what was really important here was government regulations. It's kind of for building smoking in public rooms, taxes. And tobacco I think also shows that it's very difficult to get a 100% buy-in. There's still 10, 20% some countries more people who smoke and they are totally aware of the risks. So I think at some point we also should be fine with it. I don't think I feel we should say well we only go, the vaccination is different, but to be active in climate say we wait till we got the last person convinced and get a 100% buy-in. Probably you will never get that. But I think you're quite right. In the end it's top-down efforts that really make the difference. I think in educating the media, I mean I think the media sort of has stumbled around without recognizing their power and how much it's changed. And I think that they just haven't been, they haven't kept up with it. You know there's this idea, this Jeffersonian idea that the way to, or Madison, the way to fight bad ideas is with more ideas. And they just feel like well we'll just keep, what you said, we'll just keep pushing it out there and people will eventually be beaten into submission, but that doesn't work. And I think that, and this fairism also, this both sidesism, I think they're slowly getting over that. I love this, we're coming down in favour of a media that is very much controlling of the message rather than exploring a balanced reportage. Fascinating, a mix of hard and soft power, one could say, the strong arm of the law, but also clever, sophisticated ways of influencing people to bridge the scientific community as you're creating all this knowledge. Other people are following your wake using it for nefarious purposes. Fascinating conversation, I would love for us to stay longer, but unfortunately we've come to an end already. So thank you very much for joining us, thank you very much.