Adam Kucharski

I now notice other scientists making the same mistake.

They might say, the evidence is clear, when it isn't to a lot of people.

Or they might say, it's well established this is true, without saying why it's true.

This matters because increasingly we have to navigate a world that most of us struggle to fully understand.

From climate and health to finance and AI, there often isn't a simple intuitive logic behind what we're seeing.

But there are lots of catchy false explanations ready to lead us astray.

As science becomes more advanced and more reliant on opaque or counterintuitive technologies, these challenges will only grow.

I've got a PhD in maths, and I still don't fully understand the details of every climate simulation or AI algorithm.

So like many others, I've had to find other ways to evaluate public claims.

I've turned to experts with good track records.

I've sense-checked sources.

I've looked for inconsistencies, and I've tried to explain as much as I can.

In this changing world, we're going to have to close this gap between knowing what is happening and wanting to know why it's happening.

That means finding better ways to trust the things we can't explain and better ways to explain the things that we don't trust.

Thank you.