The Infinite Monkey Cage - The Infinite Monkey Cage USA Tour: New York

Episode Date: July 6, 2015

The Infinite Monkey Cage USA Tour: New YorkThe Infinite Monkeys return for a new series, the first of which will see them head to the USA for their first live tour. This week Brian Cox and Robin Ince can be found on stage in New York asking the question, Is Science a Force for Good Or Evil? They are joined on stage by Bill Nye the Science Guy, cosmologist Janna Levin, actor Tim Daly and comedian Lisa Lampanelli.

This is the first radio ad you can smell. The new Cinnabon pull-apart only at Wendy's. It's ooey, gooey and just five bucks for the small coffee all day long. Taxes extra at participating Wendy's until May 5th. Terms and conditions apply. Hello, I'm Robin Ince. And I'm Brian Cox. And welcome to the podcast version of the Infinite Monkey Cage, which contains extra material that wasn't considered good enough for the radio. Enjoy it. which contains extra material that wasn't considered good enough for the radio. Enjoy it.

Ladies and gentlemen, are you ready for some particle physics? Are you ready for quantum cosmology? Are you ready for epigenetics? Please welcome for the first time live in New York, the Infinite Monkey Cage, with Mr Robin Ince and Professor Brian Cox. Hello. Thank you.

Would you explain what we're doing, if you don't know? You probably now wonder what you're doing here. But we're going to record the Infinite Monkey Cage, which is our radio show that we do for BBC Radio 4, and it will also be a podcast. I think it'll be broadcast in something like June, won't it? Which is going to confuse everybody when we make all the references to the weather, etc. Oh, yeah, that'll confuse people.

Not the particle physics. They'll be fine with that. Fine with the behaviour of the particles. Oh, the weather bit and time. I don't understand that at all. I've got a bit. Because sometimes I think people don't realise that in Britain there's a lot of idiots as well.

First, we got 30 complaints before we'd even recorded a show. And it was because of this title, The Infinite Monkey Cage. We got this... The first email we got just went, uh, well done, BBC. But it didn't mean well done. It was in a really sarcastic font. Well done, BBC. Yet again, you celebrate vivisection and the incarceration of animals, right?

And we used to be allowed to reply to the complaints, though that changed quite quickly. And we just went, just so you know, an infinite monkey cage is roomy. And they said that's still not good enough. Arguably, the universe is an infinite cage, we said. And then they said, and it also refers to the Darwinian myth that ten monkeys and ten

typewriters... No, it didn't say it was a Darwinian myth. It's not a Darwinian myth. That an infinite number of monkeys would eventually write the works of Shakespeare. That was it. This is rubbish, as a recent experiment has proved, right? Scientists here, can you imagine the grants application for that? I need an infinite number of monkeys in an

infinitely big cage. Well this was basically, they said they gave five monkeys, five typewriters in a zoo and after a week all they'd done was poo and wee in the typewriters. So I don't see how they could have ever come up with Shakespeare. And then we tried to explain that five is a long way off an infinite number, right? And then they said, they presumed it would still be reasonably incremental. So if you gave 50 monkeys, like, 50 typewriters,

then you might get a kind of a brief leaflet about dietary choices. Kind of, you know, 200 monkeys you get the Reader's Digest, and then like a thousand monkeys you get a kind of simian version of Fifty Shades of Grey. And it's, we are going to be talking about science, a force for good or evil, and we have got together an absolutely fantastic panel. So, Brian, would you like to introduce our first guest? Yes, our first guest, astrophysicist, author of How the Universe Got Its Spots

and A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, the first scientist in residence at the Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art, is Jana Levin. Our next guest has also been at the forefront of research, predominantly the research into new and exciting ways of insulting people. She is also the author of Chocolate Please, My Adventures in Food, Fat and Freaks. Please welcome to the stage Lisa Lampanelli.

Hi, everybody. The voice of Superman, the face of a drug addict screenwriter in The Sopranos and currently starring in the US TV show Madame Secretary, also played at Jim Lovell in From the Earth to the Moon it is Tim Daly You always need to have the designer of an

extraterrestrial sundial on a panel like this and we are lucky to have the designer of an extraterrestrial sundial on a panel like this, and we are lucky to have one. He is a science broadcaster, he is a science entertainer, he is a fantastic pugilist when it comes to combating creationism, and he is Bill Nye the Science Guy! So, Jana, the infinite monkey cage. We should start out with some definitions. So I know your first book that you wrote was looking at the question of whether the universe is indeed infinite

or whether it might be finite, like the surface of the Earth. So if I asked you the question, is there such a thing as an infinite monkey cage, what would the answer be? The answer would be, we don't really know. I mean... That's so easy for you people. Well, actually, the reason I wrote that book

was because I had been thinking a lot about this idea of whether or not the universe, if it really began in a Big Bang, could be infinite, if that really made sense, to think of something that's born that's infinite. Actually, it turns out that there is a funny way in which that can make sense, but it got the question going,

and we started to wonder if it wasn't, as you said, like the Earth. You travel in a straight line from New York City, you come back to New York City eventually, right? Maybe the whole universe is like that. It's not a question that we're going to easily answer by looking out at the large scale structure of the universe. Because we can only see as far as light has been able to bring us information

since the origin of the universe. But there is this idea that there are extra spatial dimensions, that the universe has 10 dimensions or more. And those might be finite and small. And it's possible that by looking at particle accelerators and exploring if we can probe tiny, small internal dimensions, that we'll learn something about the universe on the largest scale. That's what I'm going to do.

It's like a game of balloons. You squeeze one dimension and the others get big. So some are small and some are big. But let me ask you guys this. I'm a mechanical engineer. I took many years of physics. I don't play at your level, but if I say to you,

why is the universe accelerating? You'll say because there's dark energy or you'll say that it's dark matter. Is that right? I'd say because it's dark energy. Yeah, and then if I say, well, what's dark energy? Then you'll say it's the thing that makes the universe accelerate. So if this dark energy is out there pushing the universe apart, except it's in outer space, so it just goes...

Would we observe it here? Is there something about dark energy, dark matter, that's like neutrinos that's zipping through us and we don't feel a thing? Yeah, actually, it is possible that just like neutrinos, the dark matter, not the dark energy, but the dark matter could eventually, eventually interact with one of our detectors here.

So that is a big ambition. What's our detector? Underground, water-filled thing? We have them in underground detectors that are specifically set up to detect these dark matter particles if they exist, because they will be passing through this room now. So sure enough, you guys want to call them particles right because you love your

part. Can we call them dark columns? That's dark matter, not dark energy. That's the most convincing theory for what dark matter is at the moment. How about dark columns, particles of dark? We are talking about over 95% of the energy in the universe here that we actually have no clue about. But you still want grant money. Well, to find out what it is. If we knew what it was, we wouldn't need any grant money. But we should say, though, that dark energy,

it's always been there in Einstein's equations. So it was there originally when Einstein wrote his equations down for gravity 100 years ago this year. The term that could do that was there in the equation. So it's allowed... Is it lambda? It is. Yeah, yeah. Cosmological constant term it's called. So it's something that's been known that it could exist

theoretically. It turns out it looks like it's there now because the universe is accelerating in its expansion. And then the very early universe, this idea of inflation, also requires something of that form, if it's indeed true. And we have some experimental suggestion that that theory may be right. And also, finally, the Higgs boson, which has been now discovered at the Large Hadron Collider, Finally, the Higgs boson, which has been now discovered at the Large Hadron Collider, looks like it should behave in that way, although it's a little bit too big by a factor of 10 to the power of 120.

Which is one with 120 knots after it. So there's something genuinely fundamental. That's why it's exciting, I think. Particle physics and cosmology are very exciting at the moment because there's something genuinely fundamental that everybody's missing. You know when you look at a man's face and all it says is, I'm sacking my agents? Tim!

You know, it's funny. I'm an artist. I'm an artist guy. But I think about the relationship between art and science a lot. And, you know, Carl Sagan talked about love. And love is one of those things that I think we all agree that we need, but we really have no idea what it is. And, you know, Carl Sagan talked about love, and love is one of those things that I think we all agree that we need, but we really have no idea what it is. And we've tried all different ways,

scientific and emotional ways and artistic ways to define it, and we still don't know what it is. We just know that everybody needs it. And I was thinking that, you know, there's an essential connection between arts and sciences because they're both after the truth, right? They're both... And science is looking at an objective truth, an observable truth, and the arts look for emotional truth. And I sort of think that Carl Sagan got it,

which is that without the emotional truth, none of the stuff that you guys do matters. Yeah! No, that's true. No, no, this is... I talk about this all the time, the joy of discovery. Our ancestors who did not pursue discoveries were not really our ancestors.

They got eaten by somebody else who didn't care about... No, so this brings out the best in us, the passion, beauty, and joy, the PB&J. I think it also addresses... No, really. It addresses the uptake quote, which is that it does bring us comfort, right?

Because the questions we ask are questions about our connectedness all the way back to the origin of the universe and maybe even beyond that. Two deep questions. Where did we come from? And are we alone? Those two questions drive us that's what makes us go what's your view actually obviously well I

think obviously we can't be alone if you're talking about the universe even the observable universe is 250 billion galaxies 200 billion stars which we can't be but confine us to the Milky Way galaxy. Confine the argument to the 200 billion or so suns in the Milky Way. What's your view there? It's possible. If you speak to biologists, they may well say that the probability you'll get complex life is extremely low. What's your view on that? Well, so what if it is?

Okay. Just speaking for myself personally. Do you know that I had Carl Sagan for astronomy? I took one class from Carl Sagan. And he was a passionate guy. I joined the Planetary Society in 1980. Now I'm the CEO of the Planetary Society. And there's one thing, there's one way to make sure

that you do not detect life elsewhere in our galaxy, and that's to not look for it. And so this is not something you want to commit all of your intellect and treasure, you know, everything that you would spend in like 20 minutes in the Middle East, but something that you do in the background all the time because if we were to detect a signal from another civilization on purpose or by accident it would utterly change the course of human history it would change the way everybody thinks about everything about what it is to be a living thing what it is to be a part of the cosmos and so that is something just you know just a little plug for the planet Earth's it's something we do in the background all

the time. Lisa, what would that mean to you? If indeed it turned out that there was another civilization and we contacted this and we knew that we weren't alone in the universe, would that change the way you live? I would be so happy because there are so many more guys that I could hit on and try to marry. I just think it would be great because I came here

today thinking I'd meet some hot scientists. Wrong, except for you. I mean, with that Davy Jones haircut, I also came because I thought this was with a cosmetologist and she'd give me some makeup advice.

I figured Tim Daly, look at him. I wanted to make him go where many men have gone before. But if there's more planets out there with life, I'm going there. Shoot me up in a rocket, biatches. That's all I'm saying. Does that make sense?

You should write episodes of Star Trek. I'm very smart. They'll be on a little bit later than the original series was on. A little bit. Tim, you played Jim Lovell. You've done some research into the idea of space exploration. Why do you think it is that we

had so much passion? When you think of a generation that was growing up during the space race, then the landing on the moon, that first footstep on the moon, and then within about four years people kind of go, well, yeah, we've done that. And people drift off, and we lose that excitement. We've just made our first steps on something beyond the planet Earth.

How do we keep people... Well, you know, this gets discussed a lot because things like, you know, solving climate change gets talked about as something that needs an Apollo space program-sized program that galvanizes the best minds to attack it. And I honestly think that it's something really sort of lame and very American, which is that President Kennedy

was able to turn it into a competition. It was a competition against the Russians, and also, I mean, let's face it, rockets are these big phallic things that you fire into space. It's not like, I mean, could phallic things that you fire into space. Could we teach everybody in the United States to read? Probably. We probably could do that if we really concentrated on it, but it's not as sexy as a big thing

that blows up. It's not. And we have no one to compete with, really, or we haven't decided. Maybe we said, we are going to defeat the Chinese in the reading race, but there's no place to go. No, it's not the Cold War anymore, everybody. And the other thing that people talk about, how many people want to go live on Mars?

You're out there? Let me tell you something. It's really cold. It's very unpleasant. Yeah, there's very little liquid water around. There's nothing to eat. And this next one, you will notice right away.

You can't breathe. And so, open the door. So, we have, I think it's humankind, we're all from East Africa and everybody's spread all over the world

and every time things slow down, we're going to keep going. We'll go across Eurasia. Hey, we found some wheat. Cool, we can live here. Then we'll go across North America and just kill everything and eat it. Cool.

But we are reaching a point, as humankind, where we can't just keep expanding. We can't just keep extracting the Earth's resources. And it's going to take a different way of looking at it. Doesn't that also make us think about life on other planets? The furthest signals we sent are only 70 light years out in space. They're in our backyard

and in about 70 years we might expire here, right? So the odds aren't great for technologically advanced civilizations if we're any indication of what happens a couple hundred years after developing an industrial revolution. The other thing though about the space race was you have to remember that there were a lot of scientists

who were really interested just in an intellectual way about what was going on in the rest of the universe, but it was sold as a threat to the United States, right? That's how it was sold, is the Soviets are going to get there first and they're going to bomb us from the moon. The ultimate high ground. You asked before, you know, if there are other, you know, is there life in the universe?

Probably what we should do is create a threat, say they're a threat to the United States, and we'd better go there and attack them. And that would get us the funding to further explore space. One of the key things... We need a new Orson Welles, don't we, basically, to bring us together. It also seems to me, though, that if we come to the conclusion that civilisations are extremely rare,

let's just imagine that we're the only one in the Milky Way galaxy. That's the best it could do. That means we're the only place where there is meaning. The universe means something to me, the self evidently meaning it. But nowhere else in the Milky Way galaxy would that not also bring us together? Would that not bring us together in a celebration of our rarities? So this gets in, you can do this on a smaller scale at a reasonable price on Mars. You know, it's very reasonable that life started on Mars. It's very reasonable that life started on Mars.

And it's not, it's extraordinary but not crazy to say that life started on Mars. Mars is as any happy planetary geologist will document, was hit with an impactor three billion years ago. Woo woo woo woo woo woo woo woo woo. Except it's in space.

Down onto the Earth through something called a home in orbit and that you and I, everybody here, is a descendant of a Martian thing. Or you could go to Mars, scour the place, and find nothing. Nothing alive. And that would also be profound.

Profound. And, you know, I got to think that no matter what happens with climate change, enough humans are going to get through it. 150 years, you know, I got to think that no matter what happens with climate change, enough humans are going to get through it. 150 years, 200 years, those questions will be answered. People will have gone to Mars, wandered around, sniffed carefully, and looked for signs of life. People will probably have gone to Europa, this moon of Jupiter has twice as much seawater

as the Earth, and looked for signs of life. But we are living, we're living at that time where we discovered the universe is expanding. We discovered that Mars was once very wet, and we are living at that time where we could do this exploration and look for this fundamental question. And to the enemy on the outside thing, if we were to discover that life is not unique and that Mars has living things. Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do. I mean, it would change the way everybody felt about the Earth, I think, in a good way.

I think it would change the way we thought about ourselves because as an artist and as a performer, you like to think you're so special. So I think I love thinking that, wow, Earth, we're the only people who can breathe, we're the only people with thoughts, we're so special. So I think I love thinking that, wow, earth, we're the only people who can breathe. We're the only people with thoughts. We're so unique. And we're the only people who are going to heaven. So, I mean, some of us, hell, I don't know this guy. So no, but I love feeling like I'm so special. Don't you think people in general like to feel that and are comforted by that?

I think if it turns out, if we did meet extraterrestrials and they were superior to us, then I think that we would attack them. Create a real... This is the problem. We don't have a grand history of exploring our own planet and each time we found a new civilization, we'd go,

hello, here's some treats and we won't be demanding everything. Oh, have flu. Have influenza and have colds. Never mind. I have to mention that The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, and Star Trek are all TV shows that my father was on. Wow. So it's very interesting that we're here talking about that.

That's cool. And those shows were derivative, everybody, of the Cold War. I mean, that was at the same time. Bringing up those, because I think they are really important TV shows and I think they show a change in human mentality. You look at The Twilight Zone, which is still one of my favorite shows, and I think Rod Serling

was a great writer. And the hope in it, and the compassion, and the empathy, and I think the lack of narcissism is this one of the things that is also creating a problem. We've heard, there's been a lot of things in the media recently about a kind of the lack of narcissism is this one of the things that is also creating a problem. We've heard there's been a lot of things in the media recently about a kind of a selfish society as opposed to an empathetic society. You know, Socrates complained about kids today. Okay, so I'm sympathetic to the kids today thing, but the kids are the future.

It's not just the kids, it's the adults, it's the grandparents is everyone with a mobile phone and a selfie ability But there but I think it's a different thing It's not just the same ago the kids are doing this you're right Socrates did juvenile did you know? They all they were they were grumpy people. That's why they became philosophers Which was the cause and effect were they grumpy and they became philosophers or their philosophy came wait a minute That's crazy. The other thing about Star Trek, which was so cool for me, is this optimistic view of the future

through science. There's so many science fiction stories where the future really sucks. I mean, it's apocalyptic, and everything blows up. I mean, the Golden Gate Bridge, how many times have we taken out the Golden Gate Bridge?

Man, in movies. And so the thing about Star Trek that set it apart from all that, at least for me, was optimism. And may I say, optimism through science. They had solved all the problems of food, water, shelter, and all their interactions were these humans or human-like entities who spoke English very well, and they interacted, and that's what the story was about.

I think this gets us a little bit to the idea of, am I allowed to talk about science, good or evil? Yes, yes. But you mentioned that... To get on to the subject of this late stage. But the cell phone is an interesting example because it has this sort of paradox, which is that it makes you closer to people that you're far away from

and farther away from people you're close to. So it's both things. You know, you're reaching out to people and connecting and being less selfish, but you're sitting at dinner across from someone and not speaking to them because you're involved in your machine. This is the parallel play. have you heard that term? It's people, when they're together, even if we're both doing this, we're still kind of together, and once in a while, you look up from your laptop, and you make some insightful comment about the cosmos, and then you go back, and so I think, I think you guys comment that we are living through a time.

People will get over this. Like we're just texting and cell phones is so new to us that we don't like we don't have a state. We haven't established the knives over here, the forks over here by tradition. We haven't established that etiquette. There's no etiquette. But I thought parallel apply applied only to toddlers, for instance. So are you saying that we've regressed culturally

to a state of toddlers? What's the difference between you, between me and a toddler? I did catch you taking a selfie backstage. What? Oh, wait, I was in it. You were in it? No. And it's on Instagram.

Yeah, yeah, no. So it's sort of an obvious statement to make, because I alluded to earlier that you can see science as technology and you can say, well, we have cell phones, we have medical technology, et cetera, and it's kind of obvious that most people would agree that that's a good thing. Science is engineering, is invention.

But what about the kind of science that we do, which is just purely for the acquisition of knowledge? So it's a cosmology or particle physics, curiosity-led science. Is that a force for good or evil? Is it even possible to justify it in a society that has a limited amount of money to spend? I think that you're exactly right, that we often try to justify what we're doing by saying how it's going to make the creature comforts better, right? It's going to make our immediate lives better, but that is absolute lie in terms of it's not why we do it at all. We're really interested in something that's stirred by our own curiosity, our own sense of beauty and need for meaning,

which is what you referenced. So you guys are explorers, wouldn't you say? Yeah, and I think very much so, but it's a force for good in the sense that I think that is an absolutely human drive. I can't imagine there was ever a human being in the short time that we've been on this planet that didn't look into the sky and wonder, you know, what else is out there?

So it's arts for art's sake and science for science's sake. Yes, and in that sense, yes, it is an art. The art is in the asking of the questions, right, and in the framing of the answers. The discoveries exist out there independent of us, but so do people's observations about humanity and truth and relationships, right? It's an observation

about something that we believe to be true. So when you played Jim Lovell, did you speak to Lovell? So we should say Jim Lovell flew on Apollo 8 and Apollo 13. And Apollo 8, that Christmas Eve 1968, very famous, the Christmas broadcast of Genesis back to the Earth, very moving broadcast, actually, no matter what you think about the reading,

but also the Earthrise picture, which was, some people would say, was the iconic image of the Apollo program. It wasn't Apollo 11, it was Apollo 8. Yes, we enacted that from the Earth to the Moon, and I remember I was telling Robin that, you know, there was this shot of me looking out of the porthole of the Apollo 8 capsule, and then they cut to that famous photograph of the blue Earth.

And I remember I had a lot of friends who saw it. And this is a great example of how art can sort of translate something into meaning for people that scientists might not be able to. And I had friends call me and say, Dude, when you were looking out the window and you saw the Earth, that must have been so awesome. It was amazing. And I had to say, no, no, I did not go into space. What?

I was in a movie studio at 4 o'clock in the morning and there was a piece of tape next to the lens of the camera and I wanted to go home. Did you speak to Lovell? To Lovell, yes, I did. What did he say about that? Did he understand the significance of that photograph? I don't think he did.

I think that he was very scientific about it. I think it profoundly moved him, but he had trouble expressing it to me. And actually, the technical advisor on From the Earth to the Moon, Dave Scott, who was the guy that drove the dune buggy, had a long conversation with me about how important he thought it was to send artists into space

and to send artists to the moon so that they could translate for more people the emotion that they felt but didn't know how to communicate. So, you know, but these, I mean, Lovell was a fighter pilot. He was a test pilot. So these you know, but these, I mean, Lovell was a fighter pilot. You know, he was a test pilot.

So these guys are, ice water goes through their veins. And I think I told you backstage that Dave Scott said to me, he was in an Apollo mission where a thruster was stuck on. I think it was he and Neil Armstrong. And they were spinning out of control, about to go off and burn up into space. That was the Agena booster. Yes. And I said, Dave, just tell me, come on.

Like, when you were in that situation, you had to be scared. And he was this kind of dry Midwestern guy, and he said to me, well, we were a little concerned when we realized we were about five or six seconds from reaching our biological limitations. I was like, you mean die, Dave. Just say you were going to die. He's like this all the way in. Instead of freaking out, they just keep solving the problem.

I once chaired a panel discussion of quite a few of the Apollo astronauts. One was Jim McDivitt, who flew an Apollo 9, and Al Bean, who flew an Apollo 12. And Jim was in the mission control when Apollo 12 lifted off. And I think it might have been Capcom. He was talking to the astronauts. And it got struck by lightning, that mission.

I think Nixon was there watching it, so they launched it through a thunderstorm. You can't blame him. We can blame Nixon for something else. What's on the final port of gate? Nixon's lightning machine. But he said, and Jim was being very earnest about it, and he got struck by lightning.

All the instruments failed in the command module, so everything just went, fused, a lot of it, about ten seconds after launch, just above the tower, and sat on fire with all its engines going, everything out. And Jim said, he said to Al, he said, you have permission to abort if you want. And Al said, and I said, f*** you, I'm going to the moon. Flew the thing into orbit.

And then turned all the little switches, the circuit breakers, and the whole thing came back on and they went to the moon. It's like, it's unbelievable. That's not going to get in the broadcast, is it? There we are. He was focused. I think he said, my word, I'm going

to the moon. I'm down for that. But speaking of Nixon and the Earthrise photo, which may have been taken by Bill Anders on that mission, which was on Isaac Newton's birthday eve

in 1968. Isaac Newton's birthday was on the 25th of December. There's something else going on, but anyway... Don't clap him. He just got born. You don't give someone a round of applause for being born, do you? Anyway, on Nixon's wall in 19... This is from memory now. In 1970, in December of 1969,

and Nixon's wall was Earthrise, that photo, in the Oval Office. By September of 1970, that photo had been replaced with a landscape. After Nixon had secured votes in California for the space shuttle program, he, okay, took the picture off the wall. How? And that picture just inspires me. I mean, it just makes me, it's art.

It just makes me, it just fills me with joy, and let's go out there and search. But man, that guy, he had problems to solve. Well, Ronald Reagan took the solar panels off the White House, too. What are you going to do? You think you're going to make people dislike Nixon more? The backlash has begun. Were you concerned his popularity had risen?

Let's go back to this question. We're talking partly about society giving permission to scientists and to engineers to do these things. They supported Apollo at the time, and then support waned and Apollo was cancelled. Now you give scientists permission to do things like particle physics and cosmology. Do you feel that's a worthwhile thing to do, just for society to fund scientists to just be curious? I do.

I resent it because no one's funding my 12 years of comedy before I make it big. And I don't like to brag, but I'm pretty freaking major now. I have two mortgages and three Toyota Camry, so there. But I do support that. I said resentfully,

but I go, this is stuff that we can't, if we're not going to do it who's going to do it you know but the whole space thing is really weird to me because i have eight nieces and nephews and not one of them has expressed interest in any of this do you think kids because they can't get like a cell phone reception on march they like they can't even like relate to the idea of doing it not in the least they'd rather they want the charging station, not the space station. How old are these people? They're between 14 and 25. It's just odd that they've

never mentioned it. They show no interest. I think there's about to be a change in that, though. I think just the fact that the idea of Mars missions has started to be talked about, the fact that we are seeing these incredible images coming from Mars, which every time I see that, I think, you know what you were saying about, you were explaining

to people, oh, I was just in a Hollywood studio, and of course, some people listening at home are going to go, yeah, just like Neil Armstrong. But it's kind of, but it is, you see these beautiful images, and I think maybe that generation are not going to be so affected, but I think the next generation, I certainly see it in my

kid, who's seven years old, every time you can show an image like that, it's like, wow, that's somewhere else. It's a place you could walk around. By the way, for the moon landing deniers, just look at the amount of paperwork they created. There's warehouses full of paperwork. If you were faking it, you wouldn't have bothered. I'm not joking. You wouldn't have bothered.

And so images from Mars, do they use global positioning things on their phone? Look, I don't have bothered. I'm not joking. You wouldn't have bothered. And so images from Mars, do they use global positioning things on their phone? I don't even know what that means for me. The phone tells you where you are. Oh, the location thingy that tells you where your stalker is. I love that. Yeah. That's space technology. So is the weather

report. See, then it's all worth it. If I can be found by a stalker and I get more famous, I'm happy. Yes, we can. But yeah, I think it's all worth it. If I can be found by a stalker and I get more famous, I'm happy. Yes, we can. But yeah, I think it's all worthwhile, definitely. Plus, you guys, it's what you do. Why are you exploring subatomic particles? Why are you looking out at the accelerating universe?

What are you going to find out there? What are you going to find in that machine? We don't know. That's why we're looking. And so it is very reasonable that there'll be some discovery. Like relativity changed the freaking world. Your cell phone would not work. Your goal positioning thing would not work without both special relativity and general relativity.

You have to take both into account to get the satellite signal to work. Do you think, I mean, you spend a lot of time debating people, you spend a lot of time promoting science in the United States. Do you feel that we are going in the right direction or the wrong direction? Are we becoming more scientific or less scientific? We're not all going in the same direction as the problem. Well, just look at that. How many people are 715? You guys came out to talk about cosmology yeah right on the data happened 20 years ago I'm not sure because we're always we are in general humans tend to look back as you said like Socrates look back and said well

you know the kids just not so are you optimistic because we do hear, both in Britain and the United States, there are anti-science movements, be it climate change or public health policy in terms of vaccination policy or whatever it is, there are strong anti-science movements. Has that always been the case? Have you seen a polarisation? In the Apollo era, everybody was pro-science, right?

There's no better brand name, there's no better brand for the US than NASA. If you sew a NASA patch on anything, people go, it's the coolest thing ever, right? So we want to get that again. It's interesting, you know, artists and scientists face the same dilemma. They want funding to go to places

where they don't know what they're going to discover. And I think one of the problems is that with our governments especially is that they are so interested in monetizing everything. If I give you money to do research to find the origin of the universe, what's the return? If I give you money to do plays and ballets, what's my return? And I think that the mindset has to change so that we get behind

public funding for intellectual curiosity and curiosity of... Thank you. So, by the way, partial disclosure, John Logsdon, who I think is on the board of the Planetary Society, knew Carl Sagan very well, I think is the world's foremost authority on the board of the Planetary Society, knew Carl Sagan very well, I think is the world's foremost authority on the history of space. He has done research, and apparently NASA, in the mid-1960s, was considered the best place on Earth to work.

Now, those guys, those people, were not making extraordinary money. They were not Tony Stark or Elon Musk or whatever. They had satisfying jobs because they felt they were part of something big. And when you're in a production, you're part of a huge team,

you feel great about it, right? I think I read a quote there. I think George Bush Sr. once said that the Apollo program was the best investment since Leonardo da Vinci bought a sketchbook. Because he was basing it on... Many studies have been done which showed a 14 to 1 return, I think is one of the most commonly quoted numbers.

So for every dollar invested in the Apollo program, 14 had come back into the US economy by 1980. Because of that generation of engineers, I think if I remember rightly, the average age of the engineers in mission control when Armstrong landed on the moon was below 30. Oh, trust us, we'll be fine. What happened to them?

They went off into aerospace and Boeing and GE and all these companies. So that's often... But does that have to be the case? I mean, as Tim said, is it not enough to say, well, funding intellectual curiosity, let's widen it beyond science, as you said. The spin-offs do happen.

It's obvious they happen. You said relativity, virtually everything. Quantum theory leads to an understanding of transistors and lasers, but you never knew that. It was about the structure of atoms. The National Endowment for the Arts has the same thing. Every dollar invested puts $7 in the US economy. So, you know, you would take those odds to Vegas

any day of the week or to Wall Street. But, and, you know, I spend a lot of time thinking of these arguments to appease people that think of only the financial return. And finally, you know, I say, if your kid studies music, they'll be better at math. But I just want to say, you know what? If your kid studies music, they're going to be better at freaking music.

They're going to have music in their lives, and that's going to enrich them. But the same is true with science. If they think about going into space, then they'll explore space and explore all the pathways that take them into that discovery. Interest of balance, because I suspect everybody here and everybody on that interest of balance

are a very balanced program. I mean, is there any sense... Can anyone think of a reason why knowledge itself could be a thing that we shouldn't disseminate? Let's say, for example, we discovered there was an asteroid on the way to the Earth that was going to wipe out civilization in three weeks, right? So an astronomer discovered that.

Is that knowledge that should be spread? Or should we say, well, we'll keep that quiet? Don't want to send Bruce Willis. That's not the way to do it. So we discover a terrific existential threat. Lisa, what should we do? I would want to know, because I like being prepared. I like saying goodbye to everybody I love. I like all that schmaltzy end of movie stuff.

But also it would send people into a panic. There'd be looting and craziness. So I don't know. But I think you can't keep secrets from the public like that. So who's the public? These are going to be astronomers. They are the public. No, no, no, telling people.

But I mean, astronomers, they're people. Furthermore, I just want to talk about this one example in space exploration. Did I mention the Planetary Society? So one of the things we do is look for near-Earth objects, NEOs, and this is the only preventable natural disaster. We could deflect an asteroid. Three weeks, that's a tough one. 30 years, cool.

13 years, just picking these numbers, that's like right on the border. And so... This is assuming we have a space flight capability, of course. Yeah. The very famous Carl Sagan quote, isn't it? The dinosaurs that had a space program, they'd still be around. Yeah. There's no evidence that they had one. They may have, and it was not successful.

But, you know, I don't know what they were doing. You mean they built the whole rocket and they couldn't press the button? Yeah, yeah. Like the Soviet, I don't know if you've been in a Soyuz capsule, you have to use a stick to push some of the buttons. Anyway, you guys, everybody, this could bring out the best in humankind. If we were to discover an object with our name on it, and we built spacecraft to go out there and give it a nudge, just a nudge,

we could save the world. It would be something we could attack. Absolutely. What you don't. And so the Planetary Society has this cool idea with lasers the world. It'd be something we could attack. Absolutely. But you don't. The Planetary Society has this cool idea with lasers where we ablate the surface of the asteroid. Except it's in space.

Can't we just pretend? We should because, you know what, I think people would come together when you think about it. Because think about it, I was in New York September 11th and for at least a year, everyone acted like we were one big family. So I'm telling you, I mean, that stopped a long time ago,

because, you know, we forget easily. But yeah, it would be great to believe in people that they could do that again. I think you sort of asked two questions. One is, should we be telling people this? I think what's sort of your question, I think Bill's terrifying historical example is important because it reminds us that withholding knowledge

is a form of oppression. It really is. And that there is something about sharing it that's kind of a basic requirement, I think, of what we're doing. We do want to ask that because this was kind of what the show was meant to be about, so it might not really be necessary to have that.

But it's part of the thing, when we talk about science, good, evil, the idea of getting science out there, even the idea of saying science, is it to be about, so it might not really be necessary to have that, but it's part of the thing when we talk about science, good, evil, the idea of getting science out there, even the idea of saying science, is it good or evil, is surely misunderstanding what science is, isn't one of the most important things for us to kind of try and get across, is that doubt is important, to be a human being,

doubt, and how can we get that across, that to get away from dogma, to get away from fundamentalism and say, we've come up with a less wrong answer, but you know what? Hopefully around the corner, there's going to be one that is even less wrong than that. Well, I think that doubt is an essential component of faith, actually, because I know you're looking at me very curiously. I wish this wasn't radio so people could see your face. No, but this is cool. Doubt is an essential part of faith.

Yes, because this is for me. This is very personal, but the idea of is cool doubt is an essential yes because because the well this is for me this is very personal but the idea of faith for me is something that is not it is not ossified it's not stopped it's something that keeps going and without without doubt without the constant re-examination of whatever it is you're after it it it false. So I think that doubt is an essential component to curiosity and to imagination. But when you say faith, faith in what? Like there are people, I've met people who have faith that the earth is 6,000 years old. Okay, but that's faith in something that is fixed. I'm talking about it as a practice, as an exercise, right? I mean, it occurred to me that, you know, you scientists have to take a leaf of faith in order to do calculations, right? I mean, what is one? What

is anything outside yourself? And I think, you know, once you've made... Once you assume that that is possible, you've made a leaf of faith that's as big as anything that you want to make. I'm not talking about religious faith. I'm just talking about faith that you can carry on, that you do something. That there is a way to find the answer. There is a way to find the answer, but you just have to keep finding it. You never get there. You keep finding it.

Doubt is so crucial for the scientists. We built the Large Hadron Collider. We're so excited to have found the Higgs boson, which many of you might have heard of. But we're also disappointed. It completes this major part of our understanding of the universe, but that was kind of disappointing too, to have that close. Can I introduce some doubt?

And so then there's excitement of what's next. We really want there to be things we don't know the answer to. It would be right to introduce doubt. Because it's five seconds. We're not entirely sure. We're not entirely sure which, even if it is a Higgs, which Higgs it is. It's 5 Sigma, which is good, but that ain't 7 Sigma. No, it's more than that now.

That is a great catchphrase. I am getting that t-shirt. It's 5 Sigma, but that ain't 7 Sigma. Have you been to shop Bill Nye? I've been to the Bill Nye shop, yeah. 7, that's notye shop, yeah. That's not seven sigma, bitches. Have you been to the Campanelli and Nye store?

Yes, I have. What is it now if it's not five? Well, both experiments are well over five sigma. So you combine them together. No, but you combine them both together. This is a bit of technical discussion for this late at night. It's now ten past ten. These people have to go home. Look, we'll just say, free will's an illusion.

The seventh sigma might be around the corner. Thanks very much. Here's our theory of everything. Sorry, Bill, would you like to... I just want to know, what is it, if it's not five? 5.1. No, no, no. Is there a number?

It's cargo on Saturday. As far as I know, it's something like nine at the moment. Oh, wow. Oh, never mind. I withdraw. Way up, way moment. Oh, wow. I would draw. Way up, way up. Lisa, to be comfortable with doubt, to be doubtful in a universe where so many people,

we're almost evolved to want certainty, how do you feel about the idea of going, do you know what, we've got some answers, but they're going to be changing? That's okay with me, as long as you tell me about them when they're right. But then you're going to tell me other stuff, but it's better than having blind faith.

If we listened to Sherri Shepherd, we'd think the war was flat. And for the British audience, who is Sherri Shepherd? This crazy... One of the Kardashians. No, no, no, no, no. She was on this show.

She's called Sherri Shepherd. Sybil Shepherd's daughter. Sybil Shepherd. No, no. I don't know. We have this show in America that is ridiculous and horrible. It's five yammering women, yuck, on ABC called The View, right? It should be called The Rear View because they're talking out of their ass all the time.

So she's a woman who actually said, there's no proof the world ain't flat. And I was like, okay, I can't even. Like, I was getting stupider by the second. You think I'm stupid now. There's no proof the world isn't flat. I know. There's extraordinary proof. Well, no, I said that.

Not me. Thank heaven she brought that in, Bill. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. She looked at me like, right? No, no. That's what she like, right? No, no. That's what she said, but it's not true. I thought Sherry Shepard was going to be a reality show

about a bunch of drunken men with dogs and sheep. I'm going to get that made. I'm definitely going to get that made. You've got to win her. This is the first time we've ever done this show in the USA, and afterwards we'll find out from your Twitter comments whether we'll ever be allowed back again. I hope our panel have had fun.

I know there's loads of stuff we didn't. We never managed, even the UK show, we never managed to cover all the topics. But we've had a fantastic time with this panel, so can we have a big round of applause for Lisa Lampanelli, Bill Nye, Tim Bailey, John Eleven. That was Professor Brian Cox. I was Robin Ings.

Have a good night. Thank you all for coming. Thank you. That was the Infinite Monkey Cage podcast. I hope you enjoyed it. Did you spot the 15 minutes that was cut out for radio? Anyway, there's a competition in itself. What, you think it's to be more than 15 minutes? Shut up, it's your fault. You downloaded it. Anyway, there's other scientific programmes also that you can listen to.

Yeah, there's that one with Jimmy Alka-Seltzer. Life Scientific. There's that one where the 30s dad discovered the atomic nucleus. Inside Science. All in the Mind with Claudia Hammond. Richard Hammond's sister. Richard Hammond's sister. Richard Hammond's sister. Thank you very much, Brian.

And also Frontiers, a selection of science documents on many, many different subjects. These are some of the science programmes that you can listen to.