agricultural plant here so there's other species is coming in is a problem for us. it's an ecological problem but still a problem. we collapse all of the problems these species can cause together. sometimes the problems are economic problems that well, this novel species coming in will harm our honeybees and we need honeybees to pollinate our crops. honeybees are not negative, they are from europe. the are in america and that's fine but we don't have to be moralistic and say we don't like those creatures because they are alien or foreign. we don't like them because they are interfering with something we are trying to do and that is perfectly fair. those disruptions actually exist but what i'm saying, it is not because of where they are from. only 10% of species moving into a new place can establish themselves and only 10% of those actually cause any of these problems weathers human health, economic or ecological status 1%

of all species. 99% are not causing those problems. it is not to say the problems are real, it's just that there only a small problem in the picture. the whole way we think about species on the move alien in fact, i think it's very outdated. the scientists i talked to, they say that themselves. now species are moving into new places we want to call them all aliens when they are moving further north it's an alien and not let him? no. you want to preserve that resilience what we really need to do is think about it in a whole different way about where you're from, is about what is your function? now how can you contribute? ideas are really changing.

>> thank you, that is very interesting we had a new question come in. the person asks, you mentioned there may virtually no data on migration, how do we have any data at all other individual researchers intervene them in getting a better idea of the larger picture? >> i think that's partially it, we have better mobility data nowadays because of the data and you can look at absence things like that and see much movement there is. we are getting really exciting new data about wildlife movement have extensive that is is a website called bank think it is on youtube you can look it up. i just have come up with where

they have thousands of animals backtracking around the globe, many are wearing satellite tracks so you can see they are moving all the time. it's being uploaded into this one data center and they have beautiful visualizations and you can see tracks of animals moving all around the globe. it seemed similar to the violations of refugees and asylum seekers it in case the whole planet, it is beautiful and hypnotic when you look at it. i think we are still piecing it all together. that's the challenge in writing this book, where you go to report on migration? what i learned is migration is having everywhere. there's not just one place to go. migration is everywhere. so that was a challenge. we haven't really wrapped our heads around this total scale of

migration which in a way, the human experience, we are moving around all the time a different timescale. putting it all together is definitely a challenge. >> we have one final question and it's a bit off-topic but i will ask anyway because i think it applies a little bit here, it is about the origin of the public virus, is any credibility it could have come from outer space and came back? >> is closely related to the earlier stars virus so no, i have not heard of any credible scientist the arising anything other than something related to the earlier stars virus. it came from that and then entered humans. this is probably happening because humans are destroying

habitats so when you cut down trees where they live, they don't just disappear, they live in our backyard and farms and gardens instead which facilitates different kinds of interactions whether it's trade or hunting of bats or what matters are casual through all those new ways to interact with bats, we are getting back viruses over into humans. not just first and probably this month we are expanding right now but also ebola and a bunch of other viruses we get from bats. rabies of course but there's a whole list of them. >> great. if there is no other question, i want to thank you very much for this really fascinating presentation. i think we all learned a lot tonight and we have a lot to think about.

i encourage everyone to purchase a copy of this book. sonja, thank you so much, this was excellent. >> thank you for coming out. nice talking with you. >> good night, everyone. good night. >> good night. >> we spent this month, we feature tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span two. tonight, as part of our 2020 year end review, we focus on books about business and economics. economists and best-selling author on his book, capital and ideology. thomas, chief economist for bloomberg economics talks about his book, china, a bubble that never pops. later, authors rebecca anderson and marion, sharing their thoughts on business and capitalism at the boston festival that starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

enjoy book tv this week and every weekend on c-span2. ♪ >> stay with c-span for continuing coverage of the transition of power as president-elect joe biden closer to the presidency. with the electoral college votes cast from states across the country, join us january 6 live 1:00 p.m. eastern with a joint session of congress to count the votes and declare the winner for president and vice president for finally, january 20, the inauguration of the 46th president of the united states coverage begins 7:00 a.m. eastern from the statehouse, to congress to the white house budget live on c-span on the go at c-span.org for this and using the free c-span radio app. ♪ >> use mobile devices and go to c-span.org video, live on demand

to follow the transition of power. president trump, president-elect biden, news conferences coverage at c-span.org. >> good evening virtual audience and welcome. thank you so much for joining us tonight. on behalf of harvard bookstore, harvard university division of science the science library, i am pleased to introduce this event, resenting his latest book, galileo and science deniers. tonight's event is an installment in our harvard book series, we are excited the authors recently published science related literature to our community during unprecedented times. just like always, find announcements without upcoming events harvard.com/events/sites. you can also sign up for e-mail newsletter at harvard.com for more updates.

additionally, we have a science research public lecture series youtube page frequency previous talks you might have missed in series. today's event will conclude with your questions, if you'd like to ask the other something, go to the asked your question button at the bottom of the screen to submit your question. we will get to as many questions as allowed this evening. you will see a button, to purchase tonight book through partners. all sales support harvard bookstore, a huge thank you for your support during this difficult time. purchase financial contributio contributions, there is a donate button at the bottom of the screen. virtual author series pops up now more than ever, the future of a landmark independent store. the key to our partners at harvard university and thank you for all of you showing up,

authors, publishers and especially science because it really matters. finally, as you might have experienced in virtual gatherings these last few weeks, technical issues can arise and we will do our best to resolve them quickly. thank you for your patience and understanding. now, i am pleased to introduce tonight speaker. the world known and best selling author, is known for his many previous award-winning books including what makes us curious, golden ratio, lenders, accelerating universe and the equations that couldn't be solved, amazes for any nominat nominated. doctor olivia has made significant theoretical conservations, topics ranging from technology, supernova explosions and black holes planets and emergence of life and universe.

in this world of scientific research and popular renowned, he appeared on numerous programs like the daily show, 60 minutes, all things considered and many others. tonight is with us presenting his seventh book, galileo science deniers which has beautifully written and strong and insightful pieces. particularly in light of our current situation and in light of clement presses, the book quote one would have hoped the galileo story would be treated as yet is fascinating history the book may be clear on. we are living through the next chapter of science denial the stakes could not be higher. we are so happy to have you here tonight so without further ado, the digital podium is yours. >> thank you very much. with your permission, i will now

try to share the screen. >> sounds good. >> just one second. okay. galileo and the science deniers. this is the cover of the book. some people asked me why i decided to write this book. there are a few reasons. one is that i am an astrophysicist, founder of modern astrophysics six so i was fascinated by this. it's fascinating in general and business of science deniers, which unfortunately we still have to deal with today these are i think good enough reasons to do this. i started by noting the fact

that galileo is -- await. i apologize. my presentation jumped to the very last slide. i will start again. i start, galileo is a larger than life hero for reasons many of you know, i'm sure that some of you will find out here. because he was such a hero, many works of art in various areas were devoted to him so i just collected for example, paintings were he's being painted and i just put one on top of the other and took a bunch of photographs and look at them and throw them

one on top of the other. this is the earliest when he was about 30 or so, done by an unknown painter. his eyes are not symmetric which it was something that appeared in other paintings, this is a painting this particular painting is a famous painter but it's not clear whether it is actually true or not. ... for example here is a painting of him showing venice through the telescope to try to observe things. and this is even a cartoonish light painting done and the

last century with galileo trying to explain his discoveries to people from the catholic church. but, in addition to just regular standard classical paintings, there are other types of works of art. for example pop arts. he appears in pop arts, he appears even in graffiti. i was in florence as part of the research for this book. i solve this one of the walls of the houses in florence. here he has painted as if he is scuba diving or something. of course, he may doodle as well, the telescope, and he may be into works of art and other areas. there is a very, very famous play of the life of galileo. this is a scene from one of the productions. he has been in opera by philip

glass. i actually have a small peace of that off rough, believe it or not we were unable to make the sound work on this shared screen with crowd cast so you will not hear the music but you will see at least the images from the opera by philip glass. here are those images. and imagine here there is some singing going on. only it doesn't happen. oh and not only it doesn't happen that even the things do not advance, which is even wors worse. i cannot tell you why that is happening. so i will just jump over that. and let me jump to the discoveries. i apologize.

i never used crowd cast before. i don't know how to arrange any kind of technicalities here. discoveries. some of the discoveries have to do with your physics. galileo was very, very interested in freeport fall. in freefall in particular, dropped objects from certain heights, dropped objects in the leaning tower of pisa. as far as i could tell, based on my research he has probably never done that but he did drop balls from various heights. i found no real, reliable evidence he dropped it from the leaning tower. even though his first biographer wrote that he did. he wrote when galileo was very old and he was extremely young and embellishments could've

happened on both sides. in any case, what he suspected was -- megan wanted to study so whether or not heavy balls indeed fall faster than light to both. aristotle says the heavier the ball the faster it falls. and not only that but it falls faster in proportion to the weight. and galileo whetted to test of that. see at the time of galileo there were no good time measuring devices. to measure small differences in time was very, very difficult. so he came up with these incredibly clever idea of using inclined planes. he realized that freefall is in some sense can be seen as an extreme case of roles and bawling down with the inclined plane is actually vertical to

the ground. but, by making the angle of the inclined plane very, very small he was able to sort of dilute gravity to slow down the motion efficiently so he could make more accurate measurements for the motion. but he did more than that. by allowing the ball to roll down a plane and then fly into the air, he was able to see the per directory that projectiles do when thrown into the air. and he discovered the trajectory is a curve that is well-known from antiquity, the ancient greeks. he was the very first to discover that, the projectiles trace as they go through the air. he also discovered the loss of

freefall for example the distance traveled is proportionate to the square of the time, meaning if they fall falls for twice, would say one ball fall for a second another for two seconds, the ball for two seconds covers the distance that is four times that it is to squared the distance covered by the ball that falls only one second period and many other such things. of course his most famous discoveries were the telescope. so he did not invent the telescope. it was invented in the netherlands. as soon as he heard about the invention he realized this could be a fantastic instrument. he basically took an polished his own lenses put two ends is at the ends. these are two of his original telescopes. in fact the only two that

survived the galileo museum in florence. and, instead of using the telescope to look at ships, after all he was in the venetian republic or to spy on his neighbors, he instead turned his telescope to the skies. there he saw incredible things. this was one of the lenses he polished. it has this very ornate sort of frame around it. he very quickly managed to generate telescopes that had the power of about 20. the original telescopes had a power of about four. and he did telescopes that had a power of 20. the first object he looked to as the moon. and here is the first

encounter that we have with the situation were galileo's artistic education, helped him in his scientific discoveries. you see, at the same time there was an english astronomer who also looked at the moon. but when you look at what he drew from what he saw, you cannot understand anything. and neither did he himself even as we saw some features their peers affect galileo because of his training and drawing as an artist, and his understanding of life in shadow, he understood immediately that what he was observing was a rugged surface of the moon. a surface with mountains, with craters. by looking at the darker part, if you look for example at the bottom right small figure, the one that has three above it,

you will see there are points of light in the dark side, in the dark part sorry, the son illuminated part. he understood that was actually tops of mountains that were illuminated by the sun. his hope is that as time was progressing, light was sort of creeping down the mountain just as it would do on earth. he understood very well what he was seeing here. this was also extremely important because until that time, the idea was there was a huge difference between terrestrial and celestial. things on earth were supposed to be corruptible, full of blemishes if you dive heard things in the sky, and the heavens were supposed to be pristine, perfect, no blemishes. what he showed was the moon

hit the surface, just about like the surface of the earth. and of course we know now to be true, this is an image taken by astronaut bill anders from the orbits of the moon, you can see the hills and craters you see the earth rise there. this has become a very, very famous painting because of that. the total due galileo started freefalling objects. and, what he concluded at the ends, which was amazing, was that actually all objects in freefall, while exactly at the same rates irrespective of their weight. the only difference we observe here on earth is because of the heirs resistance.

now at this time there still no vacuum pumps so he could not ask have experience in vacuum. it's more his intuition and facing his things on thought experiences what would happen if you drop a heavy ball and a lightbulb. these experiment was done on the moon by astronaut scott. and i want to show you the video of that now. i am now a little bit concerned because that video also has sounded it. and since the sound is not work i'm not sure if the video itself will work. but let's see. it's now i know if you hear it,

on the moon. and it hits the ground at the same time. and i guess mr. galileo was correct. i'm not sure if you heard the sound but i am telling you what he was saying. he said got here to the mint because of a certain gentleman name galileo who made some certain discoveries about falling objects. and then he did this experiment. now, turning his telescope to other celestial object he discovered for satellites of jupiter. and that was an immense discovery. this was the very first document where he describes it. this is in the bottom half of

a letter that he wrote. you can see his drawings, very simple drawings showing for, sometimes all four, sometimes only three, only to come up to one side to on the other, three on one on the other side and so on. the importance of these discoveries cannot be over emphasized. thing is the following. first of all this was the very first objects since antiquity. new objects discovered in the solar system. second, the people who objected to the copernican model, at the time was still prevailing was basically the model where the idea was all of the planets and the sun revolved around the earth. galileo adopted the copernican

model, some decades before him where all of her is a variety of objections. says wait a second, if the earth is really just another planets like all other planets, how come the silly planet with a moon. they were saying if the earth were to how come it manages to preserve its moon? while here was jupiter revolving around something, you choose whether you want to make it revolve around the earth or the sun. obviously keeping it for moons. so that killed that objection

as well. this was extraordinarily important. it is less known that galileo also detected the planet neptune in 1612. this is the point that you see on the very left of the figure. now, he did not recognize it as a planet because his telescope was not good enough and observation not long enough to actually be able to tell that it was moving. but it did detected, the discovery of neptune was delayed till the middle of the h century when it was discovered to be a planets. the flavor of the discovery is the phases of the planet venus. you see the thing is like this, venus was known to be between the earth and the sun. and if venus is revolving around the sun, then it should

show a whole set of phases just like the moon. for example when it is the farther's from the earth is in the top of the figure, it looks smallest and fully lit. when it is closest to earth, the bottom of the figure it looks largest in basically dark. and in between it should show these various crescent phases just like the moon. this is not expected if venus was revolving around the earth. so by showing this, galileo gave a strong argument, perhaps the strongest against that model. i want now to move to something else, which is particularly important since we are talking in the context of a bookstore and so on. there is this offer and

chemist, cp snow who in the 1950s noticed the following. he noticed in england that starting from about the 30s, people in the literary circles, started to refer to themselves as the intellectuals. thereby excluding scientists from that definition. and furthermore they were complaining about scientists not knowing much about the humanities at all. at the same time, cp snow noted those same intellectuals new almost nothing about the sciences. and that did not seem to bother them. so he wrote this book, he gave a talk and wrote the book which is called pollsters where he basically described a schism that he thought had developed between the humanities and the scientists.

now if you look at galileo, galileo would not have even understood what the peace snow is talking about. galileo was doing the late renaissance. so even in terms of the chronology, we could call him a renaissance person. but he was a renaissance person and every aspect too. already at age 24 he gave two lectures on dante's inferno. this is from dante's divine comedy. so you know he was very familiar with that. he could cite dante and gave the structure of the inferno. he was also a great admirer of this poet. he could cite entire passages from him. he actually wrote an acacia comparing him to a heather

poet. he thought it was far superior and so on. it wasn't just in a literature and poetry, first of all he was a musician. his father was a musician and music theorist. galileo was an accomplished flute player. and very often played with his father. but not only that, as they say he steadied himself drawing. but in addition to that he had painter friends. the famous painter was one of his friends. this is the chapel dome that he painted. i want to draw your attention to the figure at the bottom which shows the virgin standing on the moon. if you look closer at that, you will find that he painted

the moon just as it was seen through galileo's telescope. until that time most painters when they tried to paint this thing from the book of revelation, they painted the moon as perceived with no blemishes. but they painted it just like galileo's thoughts. another famous painter that was a friend of his was one of the great painters of the renaissance. but perhaps one of the very few women painters. she painted this changing which was -- this is her first version of the painting. but she spoke to galileo. and he told about this business of projectiles tracing, when shooting in the

air. and she applied it to the blood squirting from the neck. so in her second version if you look at the same area at the bottom here, you will see this you will actually see the blood creating this project to reason. and this is her second version of this painting. and for some reason, things got stuck on me here. and i cannot tell why. i have no idea what is happening here. i apologize. but we do have a technical issue here. what i am trying to resolve. i cannot even escape from the presentation. i do not know what has

happened. >> to click out of it and bring it up again? we met please do. all right one moment for everyone. you want to hit screen share again? >> okay. [background noises] i am not getting it. >> let's see, sorry everyone sit tight for one second period >> i'm doing it again. tobacco awesome that is great. >> okay.

see that advances me or not. perfect i would not say it. [laughter] i could advance to a place i did not want to be but okay. i will go now back. so, we saw the second version of her painting. this is a full second version. thank you very much kate. okay, let's now jump over a few decades in galileo's life. in the book that he wrote and tried to publish in 1633. this was called a dialogue on the two chief world resistance. the book was written as a conversation among three people. one of whom presented galileo himself. another one was educated

layperson. and the third was supposed to be avid oeste terrien. galileo calls that person simply joe. which was actually named after a great supporter of galileo's theories. but is also somewhat of a connotation of a simpleton. in this book, galileo, anybody who read a book immediately sort of saw that galileo was strongly supported the copernican model of the solar system. and was basically ridiculing the opinions simply joe was presenting. galileo knew and his friends told him that he would not get permission to publish the book. you see to publish a book you had to get permission from the

catholic church. so for the book tv actually accepted, he had the preface and the conclusion section which seems to say that yes, whatever was said in the book actually things are inconclusive. you cannot determine whether the copernican or the italian version are correct. now unfortunately, this preface and conclusion really looked to anyone who read the book as an afterthought. and in fact, special commission that was appointed to say whether galileo defendant company and is concluded absolutely defended, even one of them said that he holds that opinion. now that was considered

political. i should also mention that 17 years earlier, there was an injunction against galileo in the strict version did not allow galileo to hold or defend or teach in any way compare ernie ms. him. he had in his possession a letter from the chief of cardinal at the time, which was a somewhat softer version that basically said he could not hold the position but didn't say he couldn't teach it or talk about this. so he thought he was okay, but that did not fly very well and he was put on trial. want to emphasize now a few points here that galileo had in his discussion with the inquisition. very often, when people talk about the galileo affair, they

presented as if this was a clash tween science and religion. it absolutely was not. in galileo never sought as such. galileo was himself a religious person. the clash was between the science he was presenting and literal interpretations of the bible. and galileo's point was that one shouldn't interpret the bible literally because the bible is not a science book pretty set for example the mobility or stability of the earth or son is neither a matter of faith or concrete to ethics. there is no prediction. he pointed out that look, it's evidence this was not written as a science book is the names of the planets are not even mentioned in the bible. so basically his point was

that the bible was written for our salvation, and not as a science book. and therefore should not be taken as a science book. that whenever there is an apparent conflict what observation and experiments tell us and the literal interpretation, means that we just missed the interpretation had to be different. the bible he said was written for common people to understand. the language was not scientifically accurate. the strongest point on this was that he did not think the same god was giving us our senses, reason and intelligence. we start to abandon their use. so basically saying if observations and reasoning tell you one thing which appeared to be you need to change the interpretation.

now unfortunately all this did not help him. and he was put on trial. the reason was perhaps an attempt to reach a plea deal, but that did not work particularly well. the bottom line here was this resulted in one of the most horrible events and our intellectual history where galileo, on his knees was found suspected of heresy. i want to make a point here, with eyes of today of course, we see this trial as an assault on intellectual freedom. you see, the point is that irrespective of whether galileo was talking about the correct model, suppose the

capernaum model was the wrong one. but it was still his right to write about this. the church did not really have the right to condemn him, to prohibit his books, this book the dialogue was on the index of prohibited books until the middle of the 19th century and so on. now, they read this verdict and he was supposed to recant all of this and he did. he recanted on his knees again. : : :

the church was right to find him guilty but as far as intellectual freedom there is no question about this. i hate to use the following phrase but galileo ended up giving them the finger. when his body was moved from an obscure grave to the current tomb where he is a finger in the tooth were removed from his body forward ever reason. the point however is the

following. in 1992 pope john paul ii recognized galileo was right and the church was wrong. here is what he said. he basically said simply that and again we lost connection. can you please do something? >> sorry, my microphone was off. >> the pope said. dr. cle -- >> a do you want to screen share again for one minute? sorry, that we were redoing it. my fault.

all right, there we go. >> okay now? >> yes. so hope john paul ii and 92 said prayer docs equate galileo proved himself more on this issue than this theologian adversary. the majority of theologians did not perceive the form of distinction that exists in his interpretations of basically the pope completely agreed with galileo but it took years for that to happen. pope francis, here i am with the pope. it's not the real pope. it's an cardboard image of the pope but it looks very real. pope francis also said the big

bang does not contradict the evolution of nature and not inconsistent with creation so to pope's now basically agree that there is no thing. this is all i want to tell you about galileo but you see the book is called "galileo and the science deniers" and like i said one of the reasons i wrote the book and the main reason is because we are unfortunately encountering science denial today and i want to give you one very clear example on climate change. i want to make what i present here completely nonpartisan. it just show you some data and you can judge for yourself. this shows the carbon dioxide concentration in the earth's atmosphere measured very

accurately and the main thing i wanted to look at is not so much the values of the concentration that the enormously rapid rate which is changing over these past 50 years and if that did not impress you enough or it certainly did not convince you that this is somehow related to human activity i want to show you the past 300 years. here it is the past 300 years and if you look from about 1850 and i remind you the industrial revolution around 1948 the rice in the concentration. furthermore if you look at the eyes core people can determine and sites as can determine the confrontation -- concentration of co2 in the air and this is what it looks like.

you can see it ounces all over the place but look at the rate at which it happens in 50 years and we have been here from ice cores data are the past 800,000 years and that this is not the right figure so again kate i'm stuck again. >> would you like to screen share again? >> yes, it would. >> we are getting really good at this. >> yeah that it's unfortunate. if i give a talk for seven hours

maybe by then it would be perfect. >> let me see here. >> yes looks good on my aunt. >> you can see because people saying wow at the seau t. -- co2 concentration has happened. it just blows off the graph here. so when you have today's situations where people are trying to ignore these are trying to deny well first the existence of climate change but after that whether humans had anything to do with this, but since i think what they should remember.

and you know again it's very sad. we are in the middle of a pandemic now and this pandemic at the very early stages in the u.s. for example statements such as we now have 15 cases and very soon it will be close to zero did not help. there are no models that show an initial response to actually cross the science. we could have ended up with far fewer people dying from this disease. so i want to finish here with some lessons and there is a main lesson. this is galileo's tomb. it's a beautiful town. it is in the basilica in

florence and by the way right across from the tomb of michelangelo, the great painter and the main lesson here is the following. you see it is really never a good idea to investigate science and to do so when things like human life or even the future of life on our planet are at stake. it is really unconscionable and it does not that science is always right. scientists are actually the first to admit that science is always on the provision. science is only as good as the data that was available to create the things of humankind. that science also self corrects.

sometimes the self correction is very rapid and sometimes it may take decades that it does self corrects. basically the main lesson is believing in science. i want to thank you and i will take questions if there are any. >> all right. >> i will take this and close it. >> every one of your questions about this book or his work you can feel free to enter them in the question box below. let's look at what we have so far. richard asked what was the relationship if any between galileo and other enlightened scholars of the time such as the jesuit kircher walked?

>> not with him but he was in good relations with many scientists at this time in particular for a while he was in good relationship with kepler the very famous astronomer. they exchange correspondence. he was then relationship with the jesuit astronomers and mathematicians in rome. with some of them he had very serious disagreements and in particular he was very annoyed when they didn't come to his defense even though their observations fully confirmed it. he was in relationship with other people, people of science at that time. >> all right. paul greenberg asks the slides

tend to advance in small steps building over long time with many incremental contributors or does it advance like galileo and who is the galileo of the 21st century? >> yeah, so i imagine from the question that this person also read thomas koon's book which talked about revolutions in science but the truth is i think that science advances both, not in one of the two but rather in both. there is a lot of incremental work which eventually leads to a revolution but sometimes the incremental work is not so noticed and then the revolution is much more notice. now of course there are evolutions that are inspired by for example in galileo's case by

the fact that there's a telescope available. when you have something like this clearly when you have people like einstein who suggests general relativity seemingly in the sense that it was not in the air at all then than that is the type of evolution but otherwise most of the time it's more occur mental and with galileo in the 21st century i don't know that we have one to be honest. for a while we thought the superstrings theory would be in question and now they are serious doubts and whether that is actually true so we don't really know. i think that with advances in new telescopes we will have new

discoveries. we will have many new discoveries. >> mark helton asked how do we combat that continued assault on science is still happening 400 years later? how do we turn the tide back to science? >> i wish i knew the answer to this. as i say i think the current sidelining of science is alarming and what worries me now is that there are some studies which appear to show that once they have formed certain opinions is extremely difficult to change those opinions even when you present them with clear contradictory facts. so the only way in my opinion to

combat this, but it takes time is to really start with young children and throughout the whole education system. the education system not everybody should become a scientist. we need humanists and we need artists and physicians. we need all of that but we do need to see them i have a whole chapter in the book about it, we need to see science as a part of culture as a part of one human culture. everybody needs to have an appreciation of science. everybody needs to know for example that in galileo's time peoples life expectancy was half of what is is today and it's only because of science but if you look at the difference between what they call the modern world in the medieval world the main difference has to do with science.

people need to have this appreciation of what sciences and they need to know some basic things like there are laws of nature that the whole universe appears to obey. >> a question about galileo given his fascination with objectivity of her tackle the question of [inaudible] >> it's a very good question and the answer is no. he didn't. galileo he was a revolutionary but in some ways he was still a prisoner of previous views. he did not believe much in mysterious forces acting across distances. this is for example why is

explanation for ocean tides was completely wrong. galileo was always right. on many occasions he was wrong. he didn't understand even though kepler projected the moon at had something to do with tides galileo never accepted it. he found laws of freefall and so on but he wasn't new. >> this is a question about the research. was galileo whereof the fact that the distant points called stars were actually sons and where did he have his speculations? >> i think there are many discoveries where he turned his telescope to the milky way and he showed what's almost look

like a sort of a continuous light broke down too many, many, many stars. there were a vast number of stars that he was aware of bruno's mistake and it was a mistake unfortunately. by the way had galileo not suspected but to be her radical he would have been burned at the stake too. >> michael, don't know what to say to that. it's horrible. michael calmly asked concerning the term intellectuals a parallel term has been used for some time at least on the. it refers to both scientists and literary scholars are all made the latter and was it a response

to the hosted the -- >> i don't know if it was a response to the bolshevik term. in galileo's time if we go back 400 years certainly there was no very clear distinction among artists and scientists and so on. da vinci famously did lots of scientific experiments as well as being a painter. he was a great painter but he was also an accomplished mathematician so people around that time they did both. people were architects at the

same time that they were painters. certainly the phenomenon i don't think really started in the 1930s. it probably started before that but we have documented it since then. there are people who still think today like myself who tried to bridge the gap by writing popular science books and things like that and made it clear this was part of one culture. >> randy calvo has a question that is rather bleak but it very interesting experiment or does the professor think the code experience will be the end of science deniers if