Skip to main content

tv   Going Underground  RT  December 25, 2021 5:30pm-6:00pm EST

5:30 pm
change all this while a new cold war ratchets up the chances of extinction, but another man made existential threat nuclear annihilation. so is humanities, intelligence, and collective knowledge? also the root of its own destruction of the only beneficiaries, the 1000000000 is looking to escape the planet in private rockets. joining me now is renown for lots for ac grayling whose new book the frontiers of knowledge, explodes, the progress barriers and future of humanity. when it comes to enlightenment, thank you so much, professor railing for coming back on. if anyone thinks that they don't need to read this book or you imply that they have their own themselves to be to blame for being blown to bits by append to give us a nation drone. why, why is this not as it's eric? well, because i'm here, i can create the, i'm forced always used in his novels, you know, only connect that if you're able to connect things together a bit, make better sense of your much more likely to make good decisions about what to do . you know, there's a wonderful anecdotal about the great fist,
5:31 pm
the steven why and by nobel prize winning physicist who, when ronald reagan was contemplating putting anti ballistic missiles up in space. you may remember a kind of defense that was installed on satellites. weinberg said, it doesn't bother me. the president reagan doesn't know any science, but it does bother me that he doesn't know any philosophy and history. of course, the point was precisely that if you don't have context, don't put scientific development in the context of it. see how science is changing history. if you don't do that true way, joining up then you're going to get into trouble. well, little known fact, and i was cradled on the enforced as ne, that's how old i am. pretty we're. but i, i don't know whether the quote from using which you don't use in the book when he said, i, maybe it's a book or full. that all he saw himself was finding a smooth pebble or a pretty, a show the great ocean of truth before him. central to this book is one of the more
5:32 pm
we know the less we know. yes, i mean it's really, it's a striking fact about the history of knowledge, if you like that until the beginning of modern times that he's in the 16th the 17th century, people thought that an increase of knowledge meant a diminishment of ignorance. the more you, the less weight are involved, and perhaps that implies that monday we would know everything, we would understand everything. we have a complete picture of the universe, and we would have a grip on the truth. and of course, this is inspired by the model of knowledge, truth and certainty, which is provided by the great religions because the great religion say that they have the final closed story about everything. and what's happened since the scientific revolution, many of the 17th century and everything as follows from that is at the more we discover, the more we find out, the more knowledge we accumulate, the more questions or problems it. and it's been like occupy an island which is growing in the ocean and then the big and the i didn't get the longer the shoreline
5:33 pm
of ignorance becomes. and we realize more and more and more how little we know give you one very striking example of that. if you think of the enormous explosion of scientific knowledge, particle physics, quantum theory at one end of the scale, cosmetology at the other end of the scale, our understanding of the universe just in the last 100 years, huge explosion of knowledge about that. and what is it taught us? it's taught us that we have access to less than 5 percent of the mass density of the universe. less than 5 percent to physical reality is accessible to investigation more than 95 percent of that it got matter dark energy. well, no idea what it is, we can see some of its effects, but we don't know what it is. and so this is a beautiful example of how the more we know the more we realize the last minute. but of course those who are religious around the world and you've had spectacular debates with that. maybe, maybe actual clergymen, i will say, you know,
5:34 pm
ever since the counselor nice or whatever, they always said the bible or the koran later in, they just entered the, these are not the true the, the, they opened up questions and then there's a huge amount of ecumenical debate is it really that knew the 5 percent was? is the 95 percent dog matter? isn't that comparable to the divinity of christ and whether he's 3 people and so well, and the easiest thing in the world is to get mad in the swanson theological controversy here. but you do have to remember that even at the bay dawn of the age 1617th century, the church, the catholic church, this area is quite literally putting people to death for life, excepting the literal truth of scripture. you may remember that galileo was put on trial for saying that the move so flies around the sun, and he had to deny it in order to save his life. so i mean,
5:35 pm
to that extent and raised the old idea that the truth about things that the complete picture was available to us in our traditions. that was the thing that was revolutionized really by the rise of science and philosophy. and in the early modern period. and we live in the world now, which is the inheritor of that very healthy kind of skepticism inquiry asking questions, probing not carrying a desire to believe, to the world and looking for ways of justifying them, but taking out curiosity to the world and finding out what tells us about it itself, but of course some would say that those are catholic elite that we're prosecuting galileo catholic elite that we're sending the message down. nowadays, we will say that science funding, obviously, and you do broach, the topic elite is being skewed towards elite a game. is there that much of a change that we have? it's changing the way science is invested in. and of course, over time we've had,
5:36 pm
i know, class managers in this book as well. i should say. i think there is a huge difference between the people who take the leading roles in scientific work and discovery. and people who occupy hierarchies and religious traditions. and the big difference is that in the science hierarchy, if there is such a thing, the idea of critical skepticism, the idea of challenging people's results of demanding it may be replicated, company of different labs, for example, checking on the results of all the lapse of the great competition, there is to get the answer right and you know, to get the fact settled that is very healthy aspect of the way that just science develops. it develops to this tremendous dialectic, if you like, of, of, of criticism, investigation of scrutiny of results. and that is something which very difficult to
5:37 pm
do if you, in a tradition where you have a center received truths and virtue is to believe them accept them and live by them . so a very, very different kind of mindset. i mean, i know everyone relies on quantum mechanics for mobile phones and the positioning and einstein's theories. but i mean, is it really replication no one at school? if they get the experiment, they come up with a different value for the percentage of oxygen or something. in some way experiment is going to go. we've disproved a huge amount and with the higgs both on its own. isn't it? if they hadn't found it, they would have just said, well, we'll keep looking for it. it's not that it doesn't exist. isn't there something on to logical about that? you know, i can tell you an interesting little anecdote about the space on, in connection with you just said that a good friend of mine is one of the lead scientists on the lot of children. and he
5:38 pm
was on the contact me on someone right experiment. that's one of the true experiments of is looking for the he's itself. and when, when they announced that they were satisfied, they spotted it. this is in 2012 after a number of years of going over and over and over the results and being absolutely sure that they really got it right. i sent him. it must have been a wonderful occasion. you must have felt so exhilarated and indeed the consequences are for him. thus in the way, gracie was knighted and you know, 100 tremendous metal and so forth. but he said to me, said oh yes, yes, yes, it was great on that day. but you know what, if we hadn't found it, it would have been so exciting because it would have meant that there's a whole lot of different physics out there that we needed to look for. now is that attitude is that we set to oversee that one that, that 1st, that hunger for finding out more on for digging into difficult mysteries of nature and the universe or of the past for that matter or human nature. which is fe,
5:39 pm
distinctive of a best of our enquiries, not just in natural science, but i think historians who look at antiquity and try to make sense of how things work with people. then people look at the brain and how it functions and into human psychology. these are exhilarating, exhilarating inquiries, and you know, it's like opening christmas presents a 2nd a parcel because you don't know what's inside. but you do know that whatever is inside is going to be part of least of an answer to a question that you've got. and i should just say the range in this book in physics archaeology neuroscience is it's all this summarizes summarizing the field actually before we return to the maybe the class elements and the what it means today. i mean, just give you talk about ogre it in syria. i would say normally series in the news because we have a british in united states backing against the government,
5:40 pm
back islamist, and so on. and meanwhile, on the ground in syria, in recent years, we've discovered amazing things about the history of civilization. just tell me a little bit about that. yes, you know, it's a very striking thought for me about my grandfather was an elderly father. my father was born in micah office. i go and i was born and my problems page. oh, so i'm able to say that my grandfather was at school in the 1817 and 18 eighty's seem sort of astonishing. and he would have known nothing of what we now know about the past. because all the discoveries made about syria and iraq, about the presence of mesopotamia, the great civilizations that flourished the invention of writing the origin of the teacher. and so many technological advances, all that was actually on until the 2nd half of the 19th century. i mean, we had to rather just had the books of the bible,
5:41 pm
the i was just as christians call it back all wrapped up in legend at home mom. but that is regarding the semi notes and grades as well. so before about the 8th and 9th century b. c. the past was if there was any sense of that at all, was just really in the midst of knowing. but just r e r g of the middle east from around about mid of the 19th century has revealed to us quite literally, thousands of years of civilization was about in mister batavia also in a rep and i'm civilization in this valley. the other, the supplies ation of china learning much, much more about egypt and now supplies ation. taking us back, we are 4000 years before a lot of us and the old testament. and that's pretty remarkable, is that only got a ball rolling and the ball rolling was a discovery of the whole new period. so, you know, they added a new stone age and the development and sacraments unsettled agriculture. and then
5:42 pm
of course, the discovery of human ancestry taking us back tens of thousands of years, hundreds of thousands, even indeed. now was the discovery of generations. 6000000 years ago when the very, very earliest ancestors of human 9 died. but the other eggs, chimpanzees, and says in this, a sparkling in the way in which time and the past has opened up so dramatically and so tremendously. just very, very recently transforming our view of ourselves in and out. well, i mean, we're really in, in a way, i, personally, you can see i'm, i find it so fascinating, a rating and feel that if people had a sense of it, but they understood it. and it would make them sense their own place in the universe of a different thing. i mean, i'm not sure what they wore plain pilots were thinking when they were bombing these areas. a reason it has to be said that they'll stop even more on the front end of
5:43 pm
knowledge after the short break. ah, join me every thursday on the alex simon, sure. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world of politics, sport, business. i'm sure business. i'll see you then mm oil and gas manufacturing, electricity, telecom quotation, all of them now have higher t type of infrastructure connected to the internet. so clearly realizing there's disruptive potential for that, those countries can't ignore it because it threatens national security. but if we take a few countries, virtually all of them subscribe to certain doctrines and maintains cyber task
5:44 pm
forces, they are a cyber army on behalf of a country that's their job. with welcome back. i'm still here with philosopher and public intellectual professor. ac grayling discussing his new work, the frontiers of knowledge. there will be some view is maybe we're in the american south right now watching this and not taking their vaccinations against corona virus and so on. who will be subjected to a different version of history financed by particular interests. would you do? do, mentioned the book. what are the dangers of this as this amazing revolution? and thought has been uncovered and discovered and invented? sure, you know the human mind and human society is like geological strauser layers of geological structure. and they primitive, very and you know,
5:45 pm
her act to take quick, easy answers and superstitious views of the world down in the mall or primitive layers of our understanding. and then increasingly psyche more questioning, slightly more open or skeptical and more rational i think. and the concept of rationality is very important here, because as i say in the book, if you look at the word rational, you see the 1st part of it is ratio, which means proportion. and so a rational belief is one which is proportion is the evidence you have for it, or the strength of the reasons that you've been awful for it. and so that tends to be at a rather level of the geological structure. people and society is in groups. so then societies find themselves at different levels of this geological lab, which is why we, you know, have rocket figures in the moon now. and people are still with the astrological forecasts here in 2021. so it's not surprising in
5:46 pm
a way that there is this kind of mixture and it's a mixture because history is always on the move, the past is always dying and the new has always been born. if i remember correctly and factor when i was, i'm thinking a bit about this interview today. i remember that you chose is never go to your agreement the decade novels. i think you are. you chose to remark from graham she, i seem to recall. and we, she talks about how the old is died and the new is not that born. i mean, that middle period that you called in a kind of interregnum that there is complexity and difficulty this, this, you know, it's problematic. the present is always programmatic in that way is it always says this at make sure the old and the new. so a terrorist might want because you know, they traditional belief might use very, very modern means to carry out some act based on that traditional belief. and that
5:47 pm
is to make sure that we're in at the moment, and it can sometimes be very dangerous mixture. i mean, i, we don't to go through breaks it again. there were complex breaks, a tear argument and complex remain, or argument famously. but how is it that if, as you say, things become more and more are spectral in terms of our understanding of the, our questioning of the world and the universe has political, some elements of political theory appeared to get more certain certainly amongst maybe it's just the read you revocation of it, but certainly say russia is bad, china's bad as was biden, would say change, but it's the trump thing. experts had what, why is this questioning in intellectual circles accompanied more certainty, i, arguably amidst her politicians. there is a very, very direct relationship between increasing complexity and increasing simplicity or
5:48 pm
the propensity to reach for simple quick on since the more complex things are, the more a lot of people are driven to look for something checkups simple, black and white. this is a you know, an example of how it is that good. it's just one dimension isn't like, you know, christian fundamentalism in the southern states in the us will funder mentalism anyway, can persist. it's because you can tell a person anybody, the fundamental teammates, doctrines, and funds on any of the major religions in less than half an hour. but it takes a bit longer than that to understand physics. and this is a really good example of how if our understanding of the world is increasingly complex, there's a lot to know a lot to understand when people will reach for the simple answer. is human beings like a clear story appear in the beginning, middle, and then end launch and explanation to what makes sense. they want to have
5:49 pm
something that they hang on to. and the simple answer is the one that you reach for when you start feeling. if you're getting lost in the complex, in politics that happens as well. so, you know, if you think of a system like the one in the u. k, which like canada and united states, america and india or have the 1st 13 system. this is a terrible, terrible voting system because car from the may on democratic is going to provide for minority based government. it also means that you kind of get to political conscience and new level, get her eyes ation. you get a, you know, 10 kind of opposition to views that results in slogans and in simplistic arguments. you don't get didn't get people trying to compromise or share work together. but you get division b, c s that is most dramatic in the united states or it was a delight between the republican party. the democratic party is so bitter and so deep as to be frightening. and we've seen it say worse than the trump. yes. that so
5:50 pm
in the case of something like branch, it's now going to be perfectly neutral about it and tell you that i think it's the disastrous idea. british politics, 7000 years, have been in the case of branch that they will see a phenomenon, which is turned back on the idea that if people are worried about all sorts of things in their life, you can find one simple wouldn't be fugitive explanation for blame it on the, on the u. s. take back sovereignty and we sort of these problems out of the way one, if you can do that. and if you can use these incredible new techniques of communication, because i think social media, the internet, what's happened and google and facebook and so on have been very, very malign influences on politics. they great from the things by the way, that rate for the sort of democratic anger of compensation,
5:51 pm
people sharing news and views and couldn't get in touch with one another. yes. but they're also really bad aspects of them because you can micro target people with false messages that other people can see and call out. i'm sure they direct them for the elections. i'll give you for that. but then it, forrest johnson or donald trump, maybe in 2024. i mean, maybe if you read that, they read the book, then they would come out with the alarming idea that they're on the right path. because this questioning of knowledge of companies seeking for simplicity. so you'd be, they're going obviously, i don't agree with it, but johnson get more union. jack's get flags around, you have more simple messages. people are looking for answers and this is a good political mikey, a valiant strategy. it is that it's a rich evidence. it has worked in recent years. yes. but i, she could switch around what you just said. a little i'm telling you young center wrote up more flags. i've been telling everybody else to watch that back when
5:52 pm
johnson start turning out more flags have because he's trying to do them. so you know that i suppose really is the message. but what we want to be, what we want to be doing, and that this is a point that i wrote the book for parking important point is we should make ourselves in the church, across the fields and inquire and in particular. so then we can make ourselves better at thinking clearly critically and evaluating what people train people change in there. because we can make some connections. we can see across the landscape of understanding of our world doesn't mean that we will have to become part of the system will have to become ancient historian. so anything but will then each of us needs, of course, on specialism we need to kind of the skill in life that maybe in our careers. we should also have this general literacy. and i think our education or the trust that
5:53 pm
verification systems like it lets us down in the u. k. we start to specialize after the age of 16, after g. c, we do few subjects at a level and you might be one subject to university. and this is not great. and the old model, the one which is kind of been chipped away as a lot in the us, is that you provider, general education. and then people specialize on the basis of that interests and talents afterwards. but if you, if you specialize too early people, new site of the context of the wider landscape of things into which what they do fits and nash i think is in pounds. it's any part of a complicated story of this day. i know you talk, you have talked to the bus or this, this size culture debate from seabreeze, though, is alive and well. it hasn't changed. yeah. i mean, i was talking about history. have you, you talk about christopher hill, who is, i'll give you a marginalized figure, the great marxist, a historian at oxford. i mean, i was taught, there was
5:54 pm
a civil war here. he talked about it english revolution. is that an example of the kind of way history is skewed? it's a very, very good example of the difference between revisionism, a background in history where like holocaust deniers that say, and i'm thinking about the past in much more exact and creative ways to try to make sense of it. looking at it in from the point of view of different families. and what christopher hill did, i think, and really a significant is that he noticed that if you put the english civil war, what happened was that charles, the 1st empowerment and the rest into this longer context of european history. you see, it is for quest of one of the great revolutions. so we think of the french revolution, american revolution, we think that they both mentioned
5:55 pm
a bolshevik revolutions. and indeed the revolution some folks as well that the enlightenment represents. and you see this as part of very, very significant and instructive process. so he was able to push it into and you know, context which makes a c, h, a fresh and interesting the fresh, using this perspective, that a marxist interpretation of history office that's very valuable. i cited in the book as a, as a way of showing how revisionism in history that ish revising our understanding of something is different from historical denial. and can be used to inform us much, much more sensitively about things. another example i use, of course, is feel free. they regarded when the cyclist came with, you know, after captain cook, back at the end of the 18th century, they regarded australia as well, sometimes called to terra, and earliest an empty land. you just take it there for the,
5:56 pm
for the taking. and it's only very recently that some historians and australia are said i, on, you know, it was a hand with many, many different kinds of people living in it. and in fact, it was an invasion. it wasn't a settlement and it was of a violent one because there was a long drawn out war between the sexes and the aborigines, which only very recently ended. and that is a way of revising our view of history understanding things differently and trying to do something better now and in future on the basis of that better understand. and in this dichotomy between revisionism and denial, ism is boris johnson. on the denial list side, well, i don't know what course johnson's views about history. i have a very, very 90 sinking feeling about his views of the present to say, i feel well, he does, he does. but i think if i may be frank and rude at the same time about it,
5:57 pm
i think it's because he would like to model himself on judgment some way. and so he's, he's a kind of, well the shadow official version of churchill where it's ironic, deeper view of trying to show who have many, you know, characteristics which should be hindered. my for example, is covered in this during the 2nd world war. but prior to it for decade after decade, he was regarded quite rightly by most of his contemporaries and absolutely you know, boss, do it as, as some people say because he was so unreliable, politically, switch sides and etc. so maybe bars something has something similar to him in that respect your present really thank you. thank you very much. that's it for one of your favorite shows of the last season. we'll be back on wednesday, the 12th of january, but until then stay safe. and you can watch all our interviews by subscribing to our youtube channel and falling us on all our social media. ah,
5:58 pm
technology is a very big industry and there's a lot of opportunities for hackers. it is not here, but he didn't bring the law in the country you're dealing with. why arrest him that the major cybersecurity challenge is the sovereignty of laws that cyberspace has no borders, no sovereignty. we ended up with, for example, the national health service in the u. k. the and a chest was completely wiped out from a ransomware attack. if you were coming in to a clinic, because you had a test or you had an operation, they can find your records. they had to go back to pen and paper. ah, one of the major fights, chance to merge go with president bush junior, was in 2008 this so called bucharest company. and that state the united states
5:59 pm
actually wanted for georgia and ukraine to get them a nato membership to start this so called membership action plan. and it was germany that stop that and then said, no, no, we don't want to do that because these countries will not add to the stability of the nato, which is one of the prerequisites in the later treaty. ah ah well ah ah ah, a
6:00 pm
ah ah ah, the u. s. a cobit response tapes, new road block testing deposit. he runs out with a daily infection rate. surging 7 fall across some states. we have a surgeon and we do need more testing centers. i mean, look at the life that is, are horrible on it for, you know, most of my friends have to wait on line for hours and hours to get there. i've had to wait, i'm blind.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on