we discovered that global climate change

我們發現全球暖化

is turning out to be a pretty serious issue,

變成一個相當嚴肅的議題。

so we covered that fairly extensively

所以我們在"懷疑論者"雜誌裡，

in Skeptic magazine.

對暖化議題有相當深入的報導。

We investigate all kinds

我們調查了各式各樣

of scientific and quasi-scientific controversies,

科學以及偽科學的爭論。

but it turns out we don't have to worry about any of this

不過看來我們不用這麼擔心，

because the world's going to end in 2012.

反正2012年就是世界末日了。

Another update:

另外一個新聞則是，

You will recall I introduced you guys

你們可能記得我曾介紹過的

to the Quadro Tracker.

Quadro探測器。

It's like a water dowsing device.

有點像探測水源的裝置，

It's just a hollow piece of plastic with an antenna that swivels around.

在中空的塑膠上面接著一根會轉動的天線。

And you walk around, and it points to things.

當你移動的時候，它會指向某些東西，

Like if you're looking for marijuana in students' lockers,

比方說當你想在學生置物櫃裡找大麻時，

it'll point right to somebody.

它就會指著某個人...

Oh, sorry. (Laughter)

喔，抱歉。 (笑聲)

This particular one that was given to me

而我拿到的這隻

finds golf balls,

則是專門用來找高爾夫球的。

especially if you're at a golf course

特別是當你在高爾夫球場上，

and you check under enough bushes.

為了找球翻遍樹叢之後。

Well, under the category of "What's the harm of silly stuff like this?"

在那些你覺得無傷大雅的玩意兒之中，

this device, the ADE 651,

這個裝置，ADE651

was sold to the Iraqi government

被伊拉克政府

for 40,000 dollars apiece.

用四萬美金一組的價錢給買下。

It's just like this one, completely worthless,

就跟我手上的一樣，完全不值一文，

in which it allegedly worked by "electrostatic

並且被說成是利用＂靜電-

magnetic ion attraction,"

磁離子引力＂來操作。

which translates to

或許翻成

"pseudoscientific baloney" -- would be the nice word --

＂偽科學的胡扯＂可能比較好，

in which you string together a bunch of words that sound good,

把一堆華麗的名詞串在一起，

but it does absolutely nothing.

但是沒有任何意義。

In this case, at trespass points,

在這個例子裡，

allowing people to go through

若是要讓人們通過地雷區，

because your little tracker device said they were okay,

只靠這種＂探測器＂的判斷，

actually cost lives.

是會賠上性命的。

So there is a danger to pseudoscience,

因此相信這類偽科學，

in believing in this sort of thing.

是有潛在危險的。

So what I want to talk about today is belief.

所以今天我想談談信念。

I want to believe,

我想要相信，

and you do too.

而你們也是。

And in fact, I think my thesis here is that

而事實上，我想我今天的論點是，

belief is the natural state of things.

信念是自然而然形成的，

It is the default option. We just believe.

是預設的選項。盡管信就是了。

We believe all sorts of things.

我們相信形形色色的事物。

Belief is natural;

信念是天生的，

disbelief, skepticism, science, is not natural.

疑問、懷疑論、科學則否。

It's more difficult.

它們難以接受，

It's uncomfortable to not believe things.

因為抱持疑問會讓人不快。

So like Fox Mulder on "X-Files,"

像＂X檔案＂裡的福克斯穆德，

who wants to believe in UFOs? Well, we all do,

誰想要相信UFO？ 我們都想。

and the reason for that is because

這是因為

we have a belief engine in our brains.

我們的大腦裡有處理信念的機制

Essentially, we are pattern-seeking primates.

事實上，我們這種靈長類喜歡尋找模式(pattern-seeking)。

We connect the dots: A is connected to B; B is connected to C.

我們找尋事物的關聯：由A到B，由B到C，

And sometimes A really is connected to B,

有時候A和B的確互為因果，

and that's called association learning.

即所謂的關聯式學習。

We find patterns, we make those connections,

我們尋找模式，發現事物的脈絡。

whether it's Pavlov's dog here

不管是巴甫洛夫的狗，

associating the sound of the bell with the food,

把鈴聲與餵食兩件事連結起來，

and then he salivates to the sound of the bell,

於是一聽到鈴聲就流口水。

or whether it's a Skinnerian rat,

或是斯金納的老鼠，

in which he's having an association

把自身的行為，

between his behavior and a reward for it,

與得到的獎賞之間聯繫起來，

and therefore he repeats the behavior.

因而重複同樣的行為。

In fact, what Skinner discovered

斯金納發現，

is that, if you put a pigeon in a box like this,

如果把鴿子放進這樣的一個箱子裡，

and he has to press one of these two keys,

讓它按下兩個按鍵中的其中一個。

and he tries to figure out what the pattern is,

它會試著猜測其中的模式，

and you give him a little reward in the hopper box there --

然後透過箱子拿到一點小小的獎賞。

if you just randomly assign rewards

若是你隨機給予獎勵，

such that there is no pattern,

即使沒有任何的規則可尋，

they will figure out any kind of pattern.

它們也會想出五花八門的方式。

And whatever they were doing just before they got the reward,

它們會記得嘗到甜頭之前所做的動作，

they repeat that particular pattern.

並且一再重複同樣動作。

Sometimes it was even spinning around twice counterclockwise,

有時候甚至會是逆時針轉兩圈、

once clockwise and peck the key twice.

順時針轉一圈然後啄兩下按鍵。

And that's called superstition,

然後迷信就產生了。

and that, I'm afraid,

而不幸的是，

we will always have with us.

我們也是如此。

I call this process "patternicity" --

我將這個過程稱作＂模式化＂。

that is, the tendency to find meaningful patterns

意思是從毫無意義的雜訊中，

in both meaningful and meaningless noise.

尋找有意義模式的傾向。

When we do this process, we make two types of errors.

當這樣做的時候，我們可能會犯兩種類型的錯誤：

A Type I error, or false positive,

類型一，也稱作『錯誤接受』，

is believing a pattern is real

是當相信某種模式是正確的，

when it's not.

而實際上不是。（誤認不存在的模式）

Our second type of error is a false negative.

第二種類型則是『錯誤拒絕』，

A Type II error is not believing

是當某種模式實際上是正確的，

a pattern is real when it is.

卻拒絕相信。（忽略模式的存在）

So let's do a thought experiment.

讓我們來點思想實驗：

You are a hominid three million years ago

你是生活在三百萬年前的原始人，

walking on the plains of Africa.

在非洲大草原上走著，

Your name is Lucy, okay?

你的名字是...露西。

And you hear a rustle in the grass.

你聽到草叢中一陣響動，

Is it a dangerous predator,

這會是危險的掠食者，

or is it just the wind?

或者只是一陣風？

Your next decision could be the most important one of your life.

你接下來的判斷可能就是這一生中最重要的決定。

Well, if you think that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator

如果你誤把草叢中的聲響當做危險的掠食者，

and it turns out it's just the wind,

結果只是一陣風。

you've made an error in cognition,

你犯下錯誤認知，

made a Type I error, false positive.

類型一的誤判。

But no harm. You just move away.

但是沒差，你只是閃邊。

You're more cautious. You're more vigilant.

變得更加小心謹慎。

On the other hand, if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind,

另一方面，如果你把草叢中的聲響當做風聲，

and it turns out it's a dangerous predator,

結果是危險的掠食者－－

you're lunch.

你就成了午餐。

You've just won a Darwin award.

你拿到所謂＂達爾文的獎賞＂，

You've been taken out of the gene pool.

從基因庫中被抹去。

Now the problem here is that

問題來了，

patternicities will occur whenever the cost

模式化會發生在

of making a Type I error

當類型一錯誤的代價，

is less than the cost of making a Type II error.

低於類型二錯誤時。

This is the only equation in the talk by the way.

這是這個演講裡唯一的一條公式。

We have a pattern detection problem

我們有辨識模式的困難，

that is assessing the difference between a Type I and a Type II error

在於評估類型一和類型二錯誤的時候，

is highly problematic,

沒有辦法準確的區別，

especially in split-second, life-and-death situations.

尤其是當生死關頭的那一瞬間。

So the default position

所以我們的預設反應

is just: Believe all patterns are real --

被設定成＂相信所有的模式都是真的＂。

All rustles in the grass are dangerous predators

＂草叢中的響動都是危險的掠食者＂

and not just the wind.

＂不會只是風聲而已＂。

And so I think that we evolved ...

我想經過演化的歷程，

there was a natural selection for the propensity for our belief engines,

信任機制的傾向經過自然的挑選。

our pattern-seeking brain processes,

我們尋求模式的大腦進化成，

to always find meaningful patterns

總是去找尋有意義的模式。

and infuse them with these sort of

並且將之連結到對掠食者的恐懼，

predatory or intentional agencies that I'll come back to.

或是等下會提到的 意圖化的形象。

So for example, what do you see here?

舉例來說，你們看到什麼？

It's a horse head, that's right.

馬的頭部，沒錯。

It looks like a horse. It must be a horse.

看起來像匹馬，這個肯定是馬。

That's a pattern.

那就是模式。

And is it really a horse?

不過真的是匹馬嗎?

Or is it more like a frog?

還是更像隻青蛙？

See, our pattern detection device,

我們偵測模式的機制，

which appears to be located in the anterior cingulate cortex --

位於大腦的前扣帶皮層，

it's our little detection device there --

我們小小的偵測裝置，

can be easily fooled, and this is the problem.

很容易就會被誤導，問題就出在這兒。

For example, what do you see here?

比方說，這是什麼？

Yes, of course, it's a cow.

當然了，是一隻牛。

Once I prime the brain -- it's called cognitive priming --

一旦我給了大腦提示 --稱作認知啟動--

once I prime the brain to see it,

當我讓大腦開始辨識它，

it pops back out again even without the pattern that I've imposed on it.

即使不用提示，大腦也會一再的嘗試辨認。

And what do you see here?

這次你看到了什麼？

Some people see a Dalmatian dog.

有些人看到一隻大麥町狗。

Yes, there it is. And there's the prime.

沒有錯，這就是提示。

So when I go back without the prime,

即使把提示拿掉，

your brain already has the model

腦中的樣板還是在，

so you can see it again.

所以你仍然看的到。

What do you see here?

這是什麼？

Planet Saturn. Yes, that's good.

土星，很好。

How about here?

這個呢？

Just shout out anything you see.

看到什麼就出個聲。

That's a good audience, Chris.

很棒的觀眾，克里斯。

Because there's nothing in this. Well, allegedly there's nothing.

因為裡面什麼都沒有，據說是沒有。

This is an experiment done by Jennifer Whitson

這是珍妮佛惠特森在德州大學奧斯汀分校，

at U.T. Austin

所做的實驗。

on corporate environments

探討在企業環境下，

and whether feelings of uncertainty and out of control

那些無法確定或是不受控制的感覺，

makes people see illusory patterns.

是否會使人看到虛幻的模式。

That is, almost everybody sees the planet Saturn.

也就是說，幾乎所有人都看的到土星的圖樣。

People that are put in a condition of feeling out of control

但一旦人們處於自覺失控的狀況下，

are more likely to see something in this,

他們就越有可能從圖中看出什麼，

which is allegedly patternless.

即使這裡沒有任何模式可尋。

In other words, the propensity to find these patterns

換句話說，當狀況失去控制的時候，

goes up when there's a lack of control.

嘗試尋找模式的傾向就越強。

For example, baseball players are notoriously superstitious

例如，棒球選手是出了名的迷信

when they're batting,

不過只在打擊的時候。

but not so much when they're fielding.

守備的時候就不是這麼一回事。

Because fielders are successful

因為守備成功率，

90 to 95 percent of the time.

通常有九成到九成五左右。

The best batters fail seven out of 10 times.

即使最好的打者，十次裡也會有七次失誤。

So their superstitions, their patternicities,

所以他們的迷信，模式化的程度，

are all associated with feelings of lack of control

跟這種無法掌控的感覺

and so forth.

有很大的關聯。

What do you see in this particular one here, in this field?

這次你們看到了什麼？在這個區域裡。

Anybody see an object there?

有人看到什麼嗎？

There actually is something here,

其實有些東西，

but it's degraded.

只是被模糊處理過了。

While you're thinking about that,

當你們在嘗試的時候，

this was an experiment done by Susan Blackmore,

這是蘇珊布萊克摩爾，一位心理學家

a psychologist in England,

在英國所做的實驗。

who showed subjects this degraded image

他們讓受試者觀看模糊處理過的圖片，

and then ran a correlation between

接著分析兩者間的關聯性：

their scores on an ESP test:

他們的ESP(第六感)測驗分數--

How much did they believe in the paranormal,

對科學無法解釋的事件、

supernatural, angels and so forth.

超自然、天使等等，相信程度的多寡--

And those who scored high on the ESP scale,

在ESP量表上得分越高的人，

tended to not only see

就越容易，

more patterns in the degraded images

不僅看到更多的樣式，

but incorrect patterns.

也辨識出不正確的樣式。

Here is what you show subjects.

這是你讓受試者看到的，

The fish is degraded 20 percent, 50 percent

魚的圖片經過百分之二十，和五十的模糊化處理。

and then the one I showed you,

以及我放的這張，

70 percent.

百分之七十。

A similar experiment was done by another [Swiss] psychologist

另一位英國（應為瑞士籍）心理學家，

named Peter Brugger,

彼得布魯格也做過類似的實驗。

who found significantly more meaningful patterns

他發現連接左邊視覺區的右腦半球，

were perceived on the right hemisphere,

比起左腦，

via the left visual field, than the left hemisphere.

更容易察覺有意義的圖樣。

So if you present subjects the images such

因此如果你給受測者看的圖片，

that it's going to end up on the right hemisphere instead of the left,

偏重於用右腦來處理，

then they're more likely to see patterns

那麼比起需要用左腦處理的圖片，

than if you put it on the left hemisphere.

他們會更容易發現其中的模式。

Our right hemisphere appears to be

看來我們的右腦

where a lot of this patternicity occurs.

負責了大多數的模式化行為。

So what we're trying to do is bore into the brain

所以我們試著觀察大腦內部，

to see where all this happens.

找出相關的區域。

Brugger and his colleague, Christine Mohr,

布魯格和他的同事，克莉絲汀莫爾

gave subjects L-DOPA.

提供受測者左旋多巴胺(L-DOPA)。

L-DOPA's a drug, as you know, given for treating Parkinson's disease,

你們或許聽過左旋多巴胺是用來治療帕金森氏症，

which is related to a decrease in dopamine.

與患者的多巴胺含量降低有關，

L-DOPA increases dopamine.

而這種藥能夠提升多巴胺的含量。

An increase of dopamine caused

多巴胺含量的提升

subjects to see more patterns

則使得受測者看到更多圖樣，

than those that did not receive the dopamine.

比未使用的受測者還多。

So dopamine appears to be the drug

也就是說多巴胺應該和模式化認知

associated with patternicity.

有相當程度的關聯。

In fact, neuroleptic drugs

事實上，一些鎮靜劑

that are used to eliminate psychotic behavior,

被用來抑制精神病相關症狀，如

things like paranoia, delusions

妄想症、錯覺，

and hallucinations,

以及幻覺，

these are patternicities.

這些都是模式化行為。

They're incorrect patterns. They're false positives. They're Type I errors.

只是那些是不正確的模式。類型一的誤判。

And if you give them drugs

當患者使用

that are dopamine antagonists,

抑制多巴胺的藥劑，

they go away.

這些症狀就會消失。

That is, you decrease the amount of dopamine,

多巴胺的含量一降低，

and their tendency to see

患者原本容易看到不存在的模式，

patterns like that decreases.

這樣的傾向也隨著降低。

On the other hand, amphetamines like cocaine

另一種情況，安非他命類藥劑如可卡因，

are dopamine agonists.

是多巴胺的促進劑。

They increase the amount of dopamine.

這類藥劑會提升體內的多巴胺分泌量，

So you're more likely to feel in a euphoric state,

讓你容易覺得飄飄欲仙，

creativity, find more patterns.

文思泉湧，看到更多東西。

In fact, I saw Robin Williams recently

我最近就和羅賓威廉斯討論到

talk about how he thought he was much funnier

他嗑藥的時候--過去他有這方面的問題--

when he was doing cocaine, when he had that issue, than now.

覺得那時可卡因讓他比現在更加風趣。

So perhaps more dopamine

或許多巴胺的量越多，

is related to more creativity.

能夠讓你更有創造力。

Dopamine, I think, changes

我認為多巴胺會改變

our signal-to-noise ratio.

我們對信號／雜訊的認知。

That is, how accurate we are

也就是讓我們找出模式

in finding patterns.

的準確程度。

If it's too low, you're more likely to make too many Type II errors.

如果準確度太低，你會傾向於犯下更多類型二的錯誤。

You miss the real patterns. You don't want to be too skeptical.

你會忽略實際存在的模式，你不想變得太疑神疑鬼，

If you're too skeptical, you'll miss the really interesting good ideas.

果真如此，你可能會錯過那些真正有趣的想法。

Just right, you're creative, and yet you don't fall for too much baloney.

恰到好處的話，你會很有創意。也不會被人耍著玩。