Adam Kucharski

But ideally, we wouldn't just try and predict future crimes using an opaque algorithm.

we try and prevent them.

And that means understanding why people we offend and what we can do to stop that happening.

A lack of interest in explanation leaves a gap that in this situation creates room for injustice.

But it's not the only thing that can emerge in the gap between what is happening and why it's happening.

The desire for explanation can, in some cases, drive people to extremes, particularly if the science behind what they're seeing is patchy or complex.

Events must have a cause, goes their logic.

Something or someone must be behind them.

Karl Popper, who popularized the term conspiracy theory,

once talked about conspiracy theories of society.

Rather than events being random or unlinked, believers develop a narrative in which all of history is mapped out by shadowy influences.

Nothing is a coincidence.

In some ways, conspiracy theorists are similar to scientists.

They want to explain the patterns they see in the world, and they want to share those explanations with others, and they'll put a lot of effort into doing so.

Because I work in health and I've appeared in the media, I've ended up interacting with quite a lot of conspiracy theorists.

And one of the things you'll notice

if you try and debate a conspiracy theorist, is they'll usually have a mountain of scientific-looking data and papers ready to argue their point.

The key difference though is that science frequently requires that we update our beliefs about the world rather than just double down on them.

The point of evidence is to get us closer to the truth, not just pull us further into a theory.

You can always tell quite quickly in a discussion when someone's trying to defend the position rather than actually discover the reality.