siri,TED英文讲演 | 怎么刻画咱们正确的世界观?,建筑

演说者:J. Marshall Shepherd

演说标题:怎样描写咱们正确的国际观?

究竟是什么描写了咱们的国际观?气候学家 Marshall 在这节TED演说中解说了描写咱们国际观的各种因素,并共享咱们怎样用更强壮的东西替代它们!

中英对照翻译

I'm a meteorologist by degree, I have a bachelor's, master's and PhD in phys炸年糕ical meteorology, so I'm a meteorologist, card carrying.

我是一名气候学家,我有物理气候学的学士、硕士和博士学位,所以我是个气候学家,有证的。

siri,TED英文演说 | 怎样描写咱们正确的国际观?,修建

And so with that comes four questions, always. This is one prediction I will always get right.

可是总有4个问题等着我,在这件事儿上我的猜测总是对的。

And those questions are, "Marshall, what channel are you on?"

这些问题是,“马修,你在哪个频道呢?”

"Dr. Shepherd, what's the weather going第三人称 to be tomorrow?"

“谢博德博士,明日气候怎样样?”

And oh, I love this one: "My daughter is getting married next September, it's an outdoor wedding. Is it going to rain?"

啊,我喜爱这个:“我女儿下一年九月成婚, 是个野外婚礼。届时会下雨吗?”

Not kidding, I get those, and I don't know the answer to that, the science isn't there. But the one I get a lot these days is, "Dr. Shepherd, do you believe in climate change?" "Do you believe in global warming?"

没开打趣,我总被问这些问题,可是我并不知道答案,科学在这儿不论用。但我这些天经常被问的是,“谢博德博士,你信任气候变化吗?”“你信任全球变暖吗?”

Now, I have to gather myself every time I get that question. Becarepeatuse it's an ill-posed question -- science isn't a belief system.

现在每次被问到这些问题时,我都得打起精神。由于这是个不恰当的问题——科学可不是一个崇奉系统。

My son, he's 10,he believes in the tooth fairy. And he needs to get over that, because I'm losing dollars, fast.

我10岁的儿子信任牙仙的存在。他得战胜这一点,由于太费钱了。(传说牙仙会用金币把小孩子掉的牙换走)

But he believes in the tooth fairy. But consider this. Bank of America building, there, in bfAtlanta. You never hear anyone say, "Do you believe, if you go t南师大毕博渠道o the top of that building and throw a ball off, it's going to fall?"

他的确信任牙仙。但想一想这个。这是亚特兰大的美国银行大楼。你从没听到人说,“你信任吗,假如你到那个楼顶,抛个球,它就会掉下去?”

You never hear that, because gravity is a thing. So why don't we hear the question越南丛林战2讯雷杀阵, "Do you believe in gravity?" But of course, we hear the question, "Do you believe in global warming?"

你从没听过,由于重力是实践存在的。所认为什么咱们不会听到这个问题,“你信任重力吗?”但咱们必定听过这个问题,“你信任全球变暖吗?”

Well, consider these facts. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, one of the leading organizations in science, queried scientists and the public on d押韵ifferent science topics.

考虑到这些现实:美国科学促进会,简称AAAS,这是一个在科学范畴的首要安排,曾就不同的科学课题向科学家和大众发问。

Here are some of them: genetically modified food, animal research, human evolution. And look at what the scientists say about those, the people that actually study those topics, in red, versus the gray, what the public thinks.

这是其间一些课题:转基因产品,动物研讨,人类进化。看看科学家对这些怎样说,赤色代表那些在研讨这些课题的人, 灰色,则代表大众的心情。

How did we get there? How did we get there? That scientists and the public are so far apart on these science issues.

这是怎样构成的?为什么会有这么大的差异?科学家和大众在这些科学问题上定见如此相左。

Well, I'll come a little bit closer to home for me, climate change. Eighty-seven percent of scientists believe that humans are contributing to climate change. But only 50 percent of the public?

好了,我要说个我比较拿手的,气候变化。87%的科学家认为是人类的行为导致了气候变化,但只要50%的大众这样认为。

How did we get there? So it begs the question, what shapes perceptions about science? It's an interesting question and one that I've been thinking about quite a bit. I think that one thing that shapes perceptions in the public, about science, is belief systems and biases.

为什么会这样?这就引出了问题,是什么描写了咱们对科学的认知?这是个风趣的问题,我也一向在考虑广播体操这个问题。我想有一件事影响了大众对科学的观念,便是崇奉系统和成见。

Belief systems and biases. Go with me for a moment. Because I want to talk about three elements of that: confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger effect and cognitive dissonance.

崇奉系统和成见。我来解说一下。我想要谈一谈这个问题的三个元素:供认偏误,达克效应和认知失调。

Now, these sound like big, fancy, academic terms, and they are. But whensiri,TED英文演说 | 怎样描写咱们正确的国际观?,修建 I describe them, you're going to be like, "Oh! I recognize that; I even know somebody that does that."

这些听起来都有点像不切实践的学术术语,它们也的确是这样的。但当我进一步做出解说时,你们就会茅塞顿开,“哦!我听说过这个;我乃至知道有人便是这样的。”

Confirmation bias. Finding evidence that supports what we already believe. Now, we're probably all a little bit guilty of that a任汇川桃色t times. Take a look at this. I'm on Twitter.

供认偏误。寻觅依据来支撑咱们现已信任的事。咱们对此或许多少都难辞其咎。看看这个。我有自己的Twitter账户。

And often, when it snows, I'll get this tweet back to me.

一般,遇到下雪的时分,我会收到这样的转发。

"Hey, Dr. Shepherd, I have 20 inches of global warming in my yard, what are you guys talking about, climate change?" I get that tweet a lot, actually. It's a cute tweet, it makes me chuckle as well.

“嘿,谢博德博士,我宅院里有20英寸的全球变暖(指雪),你们这些家伙在说啥,气候变化?”我其实收到了许多那样的推特。

But it's oh, so fundamentally scientifically flawed. Because it illustrates that the person tweeting doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. I often say, weather is your mood and climate is your personality.

这条推特挺逗的,也让我哑然失笑。但它在科学上是站不住脚的。由于它阐明晰发推特的人并不了解气候和气候的差异。我常说,气候是你的心情,而气候是你的特性。

Think about that. Weather is your mood, climate is your personality. Your mood today doesn't necessarily tell me anything about your personality, nor does a cold day tell me anything about climate change, or a hot day, for that matter.

想想看,气候是你的心情,气候是你的特性。你今日的心情纷歧定能代表你的特性,所以即便有一天特别冷,也不能阐明气候变化了,有一天特别热,也相同不能代表什么。

Dunning-Kruger. Two scholars from Cornell came up with the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you go look up the peer-reviewed paper for this, you will see all kinds of fancy terminology:

达克效应。(高估自己的才能)康奈尔大学的两位学者提出了达克效应。假如你去查阅同行评议的论文,你会看到各种很炫的术语:

it's an illusory superiority complex, thinking we know things. In other words, people think they know more than they do. Or they underestimate what they don't know.

这是一种虚幻的优越感,认为咱们什么都知道。换句话说,人们高估了自己所把握的常识。或许说,他们轻视了他们的无知。

And then, there's cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is interesting. We just recently had Groundhog Day, right? Now, there's no better definition of cognitive dissonance than intelligent people asking me if a rodent's forecast is accurate.

然后是认知失调。(新信息冲击现有认知)认知失调很风趣。咱们刚刚过了土拨鼠节,是吧?对认知失调最好的解说就好比是,一个聪明人问我啮齿动物的猜测是否精确。

But I get that, all of the time. But I also hear about the Farmer's Almanac. We grew up on the Farmer's Almanac, people are familiar with it.

但我一向都能了解。我也听说过黄历。咱们靠着黄历长大,人们很熟悉它。

The problem is, it's only about 37 percent accurate, according to studies at Penn State University. But we're in an era of science where we actusiri,TED英文演说 | 怎样描写咱们正确的国际观?,修建ally can forecast the weather. And believe it or nosiri,TED英文演说 | 怎样描写咱们正确的国际观?,修建t,

但问题在于,依据宾夕法尼亚州立大学的研讨,它的准siri,TED英文演说 | 怎样描写咱们正确的国际观?,修建确性只要37%。但咱们身在科学的年代,咱们的确能够猜测气候。不论信不信,

and I know some of you are like, "Yeah, right," we're about 90 percent accurate, or more, with weather forecast. You just tend to remember the occasional miss, you do.

我知道你们有些人会说:“好吧好吧,你说的都对”,咱们对气候猜测的精确率有90%或许更高。但你们只会记住偶然几回的失误,可别不供认。

So confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger and cognitive dissonance. I think those shape biases and perceptions that people have about science.

所以供认偏误,达克效应和认知失调。我认为是这些构成了人们对科学的成见和观念。

But then, there's literacy and misinformation that keep us boxed in, as well. During the hurricane season of 2017, media outlets had to actually assign reporters to dismiss fake information about the weather吉林医药学院图书馆 forecast. That's the era that we're in.

可是,文明素质和过错信息也会让咱们陷入困境。在2017年的飓风季,媒体组织不得不指使记者,批驳有关气候预告的虚伪信息。这便是咱们地点的年代。

I deal with this all the time in social media. Someone will tweet a forecast -- that's a forecast for Hurricane Irma, but here's the problem: it didn't come from the Hurricane Center.

我一向在交际媒体上应对这些问题。有人会在推特上发布预告——这是飓风厄玛的预告,但问题是:它不是官方飓风中心发布的。

But people were tweeting and sharing this; it went viral. It didn't come from the National Hurricane Center at all.

但人们在推特上共享这个,音讯就分散开了。它底子就不是国家飓风中心发布的。

So I spent 12 years of my career at NASA before coming to the University of Georgia, and I chair their Earth Science Advisory Committee, I was just up there last week in DC. And I saw some really interesting things.

在来到乔治亚大学之前,我在NASA工作了12年,我是地球科学咨询委员会的主席,我上星期刚刚去过华盛顿。我看到了一些很风趣的工作。

Here's a NASA model and science data from satellite showing the 2017 hurricane season. You see Hurricane Harvey there? Look at all the dust coming off of Africa. Look at the wildfires up in northwest US and in western Canada.

这是NASA的模型和 来自卫星的科学数据,显现了2017年飓风季的状况。你们看到那儿的哈维飓风没?看看这些从非洲飘来的尘土。看看美国西北部和加拿qq直播大西部的野火。

There comes Hurricane Irma. This is fascinating to me. But admittedly, I'm a weather geek. But more importantly, it illustrates that we have the technology to not only observe the weather and climate system, but predict it.

飓风厄玛来了。这对我很有吸引力。无可否认,我是个气候迷。但更重要的是,它展现了咱们具有的科技不只能够调查天五信服和气候系统,而且能够猜测它。

There's scientific understanding, so there's no need for some of those perceptions and biases that we've been talking about. We have knowledge.

这便是科学理念,所以咱们方才说的那些观念和成见是真的毫无用处。咱们具有常识。

But think about this ... This is Houston, Texas, after Hurricane Harvey. Now, I write a contribution for "Forbes" magazine periodically, and I wrote an article a week before Hurricane Harvey made landfall, saying,

可是想想这个…这是飓风哈维往后的德克萨斯州休斯顿。现在,我定时为《福布斯》杂志撰稿,在飓风哈维登陆前一周,我写了一篇文章说,

"There's probably going to be 40 to 50 inches of rainfall." I wrote that a week before it happened. But yet, when you talk to people in Houston, people are saying, "We had no idea it was going to be this bad." I'm just...

“或许会有40到50英寸的降雨量。”我在它发作的前一周写鲸鱼爆破了这个文章。可是,当你和休斯敦的人攀谈时,人们会说,“我没想到会这么糟糕。”我只能…

A week before. But -- I know, it's amusing, but the reality is, we all struggle with perceiving something outside of our experience level. People in Houston get rain all of the time, they flood all of the time.

整整提早了一周。可是——我知道这有点可笑,但现实是,让咱们了解阅历水平之外的东西真的很困难。休斯顿的人总在阅历下雨,雨水众多很往常。

But they've never experienced that. Houston gets about 34 inches of rainfall for the entire year. They got 50 inches in three days. That's an anomaly event, that's outside of the normal.

但他们从没有遭受过那样的状况。休斯顿全年降雨量约为34英寸。而那段时刻,他们在3天内遭受了50英寸。这是反常工作,超出了正常规模。

So belief systems and biases, literacy and misinformation. How do we step out of the boxes that are cornering our perceptions? Well we don't even have to go to Houston, we can come very close to home.

所以崇奉系统和成见,文明素质和过错信息。咱们怎样走出左右咱们认知的框框?咱们乃至不需要去休斯顿,在家邻近就能够调查到。

Remember "Snowpocalypse?" Snowmageddon? Snowzilla? Whatever you want to call it. All two inches of it. Two inches of snow shut the city of Atlanta down.

还记住“末日暴雪”吗?雪魔?雪伟人?不论你怎样称号她,都只要两英寸的雪。两英寸厚的雪就使亚特兰大市瘫痪了。

But the reality高中作文 is, we were in a winter storm watch, we went to a winter weather advisory, and a lot of people perceived that as being a downgrade, "Oh, it's not going to be as bad."

但现实是,咱们在谨防冬天风暴,咱们去了冬气候候咨询组织,许多人都认姚明和穆铁柱合影为雪灾会降级,“哦,不会那么糟的。”

When in fact, the perception was that it was not going to be as bad, but it was actually an upgrade. Things were getting worse as the models were coming in. So that's an example of how we get boxed in by our perceptions.

现实上,人们的感觉是,不会这么糟糕,但其实雪灾晋级了。跟着模型的呈现,状况在变得更糟。这便是咱们被自己的认知捆绑的一个比如。

So, the question becomes, how do we expand our radius? The area of a circle is "pi r squared". We increase the radius, we increase the area. How do we expand our radius of understanding about science?

所以问题就变成了,咱们怎样扩展咱们的认知半径?圆的面积是R的平方。咱们添加半径,就能添加面积。咱们怎样扩展咱们了解科学的半径?

Here are my thoughts. You take inventory of your own biases. And I'm challenging you all to do that. Take an inventory of your own biases. Where do they come from? Your upbringing, your political perspective, your faith -- what shapes your own biases?

这是我的考虑。你们列出自己的成见。我想让你们所siri,TED英文演说 | 怎样描写咱们正确的国际观?,修建有人都这么做。列出你们的成见。它们来自哪里?你的教养,你的政治观念,你的崇奉——你自己的成见是怎样构成的?

Then, evaluate your sources where do you get your information on science? What do you read, what do you listen to, to consume your information on science? And then, it's important to speak out.

然后,评价你的信息来历——你在哪里获取科学信息?你读什么,你听什么,什么是你取得科学信息的来历?然后,重要的是说出来。

Talk about how you evaluated your biases and eva炒葱椒鸡luated your sources. I want yousiri,TED英文演说 | 怎样描写咱们正确的国际观?,修建 to listen to this little 40-second clip from one of the top TV meteorologists in the US, Greg Fishel, in the Raleigh, Durham area.

谈谈你怎样评价你的成见和信息来历。我想让你们听听这个40秒的小片段,来自美国顶尖的电视气候学家之一,格雷格费舍尔,他住在Durham的Raleigh区域。

He's revered in that region. But he was a climate skeptic. But listen to what he says about speaking out.

他在那个区域很受敬重。但他是个气候怀疑论者。可是听听他关于发声是怎样说的。

Greg Fishel: The mistake I was making and didn't realize until very recently, was that I was only looking for information to support what I already thought, and was not interested in listening to anything contrary.

格雷格费舍尔:“我犯过的过错,而且直到最近我才意识到的是,我只看那些能支撑我主意的信息,历来不对任何相反的信息感兴趣。

And so I woke up one morning, and there was this qu格格estion in my mind, "Greg, are you engaging in confirmation bias? Are you only looking for information to support what you 北京欢迎你already think?"

所以有一天早晨我醒来,脑际中有个问题,‘格雷格,你是不是陷入了供认偏误?你是不是只看那些支撑你主意的信息。’

And if I was honest with myself, and I tried to be, I admitted that was going on.

假如我对自己诚笃,也企图对自己诚笃,我得供认是这样的。

And so the more I talked to scientists and read peer-reviewed literature and tried to conduct myself the way I'd been taught to conduct myself at Pe满舒克nn State when I was a student, it became very difficult for me to make the argument that we weren't at least having some effect.

所以我和科学家攀谈的次数越多,阅览同行评议的文献越多,我也尽力像我在宾夕法尼亚州立大学上学时被教训的那样去要求自己,对我来说,就越难证明咱们一点也没有被影响。

Maybe there was still a doubt as to how much, but to say "nothing" was not a responsible thing for me to do as a scientist or a person.

或许,究竟被影响了多少仍是个疑问,但作为一个科学家或一个人,说‘一点也没被影响’是一件不负责任的工作。”

JMS: Greg Fishel just talked about expanding his radius of understanding of science. And when we expand our radius, it's not about making a better future, but it's about preserving life as we know it.

JMS:格雷格费舍尔刚刚在说,扩展他认知科学的半径。当咱们扩展咱们的半径时,不是为了发明一个更好的未来,而是为了保存咱们所知的日子。

So as we think about expanding our own radius in understanding science, it's critical for Athens, Georgia, for Atlanta, Georgia, for the state of Georgia, and for the world. So expand your radius.

所以当咱们想要扩展咱们对科学的了解规模时,这对乔治亚州的雅典和亚特兰大,对乔治亚州和整个国际都很重要。所以,扩展你的半径吧!

声明:该文观念仅代表作者自己,搜狐号系信息发布渠道,搜狐仅供给信息存储空间效劳。