Hi Jaida! I think that there is a misconception that people, especially children, are incapable of understanding nuance. Uncertainty is inescapable in the scientific method, but I believe it is ignored for one of two reasons. Either curriculum makers think students will doubt the information if teachers express uncertainty or they don't think that uncertainty is worth addressing at all. Even for teachers that want to include discussions of uncertainty in the classroom, a mix of school politics and inertia explain why traditional teaching methods have not been overhauled in a bunch of subjects that suffer from outdated or incomplete curricula.

Now that you point it out, that is fascinating. I never thought about the fact that we must have a shockingly accurate position on each satellite with extremely accurate corrective measures on the instruments that view the tectonic plates. I wonder what kind of reference is used to determine plate movements and how we account for all of those distorting factors. I am also no expert on GPS, but I wonder if there is some referential point on Earth or in space that is assumed to be static or if the satellite images are taken are oriented in reference to other satellites.

I think that the three paragraphs starting with "Looking at current projections for March 1, 2021--likely just before widespread vaccine distribution--" and ending with "and people misunderstand uncertainty" are the most illuminating paragraphs for non-quantitatively inclined people. This passage breaks down raw pandemic data and contextualizes it using jargon-free language and historical examples that most lay readers could understand. One of the biggest sources of misleading information were sensational news articles that provided raw statistics and "what-if" scenarios without contextualizing the data in terms of certainty, historical examples, or warranted level of concern. This article demonstrates that one can explain risk and uncertainty to lay readers in a digestible format that fully acknowledges the danger of the pandemic without causing undue anxiety about possible but exceedingly unlikely scenarios.

Hi Andrew. I think that science fiction and creativity are crucial for expanding our ideas of what an extraterrestrial being could look like and for inspiring future inventions. Science fiction has predicted many technological innovations long before humans had the knowledge and resources required to actually do what is seen in the cartoons and books. For example, the book Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy imagined credit cards half a century before they were invented. Using art as inspiration should be another tool that we use to try to understand the unknown and push the boundaries of possibility.

I think that people tend to think positively when it comes to the future because that optimism gives them something to cling to in hard times. Predicting our happiness in the future is a worthy endeavor because otherwise we would resort to hedonism. The reason why I chose not to make certain decisions that seemed fun in the moment is because I assumed my 56 year old self would be far less thrilled with a tattoo of my then favorite band's lyrics across my shoulder than my 16 year old self. To your point about realism, I think that being realistic is valuable in the sense of setting expectations for the future, but dreaming of big possibilities is not necessarily incompatible with that realism. As we generate more and more scientific progress, those once unrealistic ideas become real possibilities. As a species we have progressed from dying in caves of cholera at 35 to figuring out how to save kids from dying of horrible diseases with just one prick to the arm to being able to safely cut people open with machines and fix their broken body parts all because people pushed the boundary of realistic.

It is interesting to think about the distinction between an AI and a computerized simulation. I think a lot of skepticism about the use of AI and simulation has to do with the general distrust of the companies that are associated with extensive use of both types of technology (Big Tech and advertising). I think that anthropomorphizing computers to believe that they would independently generate nefarious schemes to hurt people is also an issue that is a function of either not understanding the fact that computers "think" in a fundamentally different way from people or not understanding that even AI cannot operate outside of its preprogrammed parameters.

Hi Eric, That's a very interesting question that has a lot of global political and economic implications. I agree that while ultimately we need to reduce carbon emissions, it is patently unfair to cripple the economies of developing nations in the process. Maybe the answer lies in setting goals for carbon reduction that are sympathetic to these countries' growth while also aiming toward lower emissions in the long term. I also think that providing financial incentives to reduce emissions would be another potentially viable approach. Innovation could also play a role here as technological advances could make green energy more affordable over time. My guess is that a multifaceted approach would be best to address this issue, and I am curious as to what Professor Henderson would have to say about carbon footprints in developing countries.