TED Talks Daily - The science of uncertainty — and the origin of conspiracy theories | Adam Kucharski

Episode Date: May 28, 2025

Why do we find it easier to trust some concepts and ideas over others? Mathematician Adam Kucharski explores the science of uncertainty, revealing how the very human need for explanation shapes trust in science, fear of technology and belief in conspiracy theories.Want to help shape TED’s shows going forward? Fill out our survey! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hey, TED Talks Daily listeners. It's Elise. Thank you for making this show part of your daily routine. We really appreciate it and we want to make it even better for you. So we put together a quick survey and we'd love to hear your thoughts. It's listener survey time. It only takes a few minutes, but it really helps us shape the show and get to know you, our listeners, so much better.

Head to the episode description to find the link to the listener survey. We would really appreciate you doing it. Thank you so much for taking the time to help the show. An Apple Watch for your kids lets you stay connected with them wherever they go. They can call you to pick them up at grandma's, or text you because they forgot their lunch, again. Their watch will even send an alert to let you know they finally got to school. Great for kids who don't have a phone, because their Apple Watch is managed by you, on your iPhone. iPhone XS are later required with additional wireless service plan.

iPhone XS are later required with additional wireless service plan. Support for this episode comes from Airbnb. Winter always makes me dream of a warm getaway. Imagine this, toes in the sand, the sound of the waves, and nothing on the agenda except soaking up the sun. I think of myself in the Caribbean sipping on a frozen drink and letting my troubles melt into the sea. Maybe Jamaica, Turks and Caicos, St. Lucia, lots of possibilities for me and my family to explore.

But vacations always fly by too quickly. I was planning my next getaway when I realized my home will be sitting empty while I'm away. That's why I've been thinking about hosting on Airbnb. It'll allow me to earn extra income and could help me extend that trip just a little longer. One more sunset, one more amazing meal, one more day to unwind. It sounds like the smart thing to do, and I've heard it's easy to get started.

Your home might be worth more than you think. Find out how much at airbnb.ca. This episode is sponsored by Google Pixel. I am always looking for tools that help me stay curious and efficient. And lately I've been exploring the Google Pixel 9, which was gifted to me by Google. What's impressed me most is how it's powered by Gemini. That's Google's personal AI assistant built right into my phone. Gemini helps me brainstorm ideas, summarize emails, even plan out my day, all just by

holding the power button. For example, let me show you how easy it is. Gemini summarized my unread emails. Re, away next week. Jonathan confirmed with Elise Hu about rescheduling a meeting. Reminder, development committee meeting tomorrow at 12 p.m. central time. It's super helpful for staying on top of things without feeling overwhelmed. Or when I needed a quick dinner plan, I snapped a photo of what I had in my fridge and Gemini gave me recipe ideas.

It's like having a research assistant right in my pocket. If you can think it, Gemini can help create it. Learn more about Google Pixel 9 at store.google.com. You're listening to TED Talks Daily, where we bring you new ideas and conversations to spark your curiosity every day. I'm your host, Elise Hugh. Where do conspiracy theories come from, and how do they spread? For mathematician Adam Kaczarski, this question is key, especially as we navigate a world full of complex and overwhelming things, from climate and health to AI.

In his talk, he shares why he finds comfort in leaning into the unknown, but asks us to consider why it's crucial that we find better ways to trust the things we cannot explain and to explain the things that we do not trust. It's not easy to explain whyes stay in the sky. A common explanation is that the curved shape of the wing makes airflow faster above and slower beneath, creating lift. But this doesn't explain how planes can fly upside down. Another explanation is that the angle of the wing pushes air downwards, creating an equal and opposite upwards force. But this doesn't explain why, as the angle gets slightly steeper,

planes can suddenly stall. The point is, aerodynamics is complex. It's difficult to understand, let alone explain, in a simple, intuitive way. And yet, we trust it. And the same is true of so many other useful technologies in our lives. The idea of heart defibrillation has been around since 1899. But researchers are still working to untangle the biology and physics that means an electric

shock can reset a heart. Then there's general anesthesia. We know what combination of drugs will make a patient unconscious, but it's still not entirely clear exactly why they do. And yet, you'd probably still get that operation, just like you'd still take that flight. For a long time, this lack of explanation didn't really bother me. Throughout my career as a mathematician,

I've worked to separate truth from fiction, whether investigating epidemics or designing new statistical methods. But the world is complicated, and that's something I'd become comfortable with. For example, if we want to know whether a new treatment is effective against a disease, we can run a clinical trial to get the answer. It won't tell us why the treatment works, but it will give us the evidence we need to take action.

So, I found it interesting that in other areas of life, a lack of explainability does visibly bother people. Take AI. One of the concerns about autonomous machines like self-driving cars is we don't really understand why they make the decisions they do. There will be some situations where we can get an idea of why they make mistakes. Last year, a self-driving car blocked off a fire truck responding to an emergency in Las Vegas. The reason? The fire truck was yellow and the car had been trained to recognise red ones.

But even if the car had been trained to recognise yellow fire trucks, it wouldn't go through the same thought process we do when we see an emergency vehicle. Self-driving AI views the world as a series of shapes and probabilities. With sufficient training, it can convert this view into useful actions, but fundamentally it's not seeing what we're seeing. This tension between the benefits that computers can bring and the understanding that humans have to relinquish isn't new. In 1976, two mathematicians named Kenneth Apple and Wolfgang Harkin announced the first ever computer-aided proof.

Their discovery meant that for the first time in history, mathematicians had to accept a major theorem that they could not verify by hand. The theorem in question is what's known as the four-color theorem. In short, this says, if you want to fill in a map with different colors so that no two bordering countries are the same color, you'll only ever need four colors to do this.

The mathematicians had found that there were too many map configurations to crunch through by hand, even if they simplified things by looking for symmetries. So they used a computer to get over the finish line. Not everyone believed the proof initially. Maybe the computer had made an error somewhere. Suddenly, mathematicians no longer had total intellectual control. They had to trust a machine. But then something curious happened. While older researchers had been skeptical, younger mathematicians took the opposite view. Why would they trust hundreds of pages of handwritten and hand-checked calculations? Surely a computer would be more accurate.

Whether we're talking about anesthesia, self-driving cars or mathematical proofs, perhaps we don't need to fully understand something as long as the accuracy is high enough for what we need. Let's go back to self-driving cars. A common thought experiment when it comes to AI is what's known as the trolley problem. Suppose we have a the trolley problem. Suppose we have a heavy trolley or a big car and it's going to hit a group of people. But you have the option of pulling a lever to divert the vehicle so it hits only one person. Would you pull that lever? And would it matter whether the people are old or young?

These kinds of decisions can sometimes crop up in real life with human drivers. In 2020, a car in Michigan swerved to avoid a truck and hit a young couple walking on the pavement, putting them in hospital for several months. Would AI have reacted differently? Well, it turned out that the car was also racing side by side with another vehicle at the time, and the driver didn't have a valid license. Before we get too deep into theoretical dilemmas, we should remember that humans often aren't very good drivers. If we could ensure there were far fewer accidents on our roads, would you mind being unable to explain the ones that did happen? In this complex world of ours,

maybe we should just abandon the pursuit of explanation altogether. After all, many data-driven areas of science increasingly focus on prediction because it's fundamentally an easier problem than explaining. Like anesthesia, we can often make useful predictions about what something will do without fully understanding it. But explanation can sometimes really matter if we want a better world. The focus on prediction is particularly troubling in the field of justice.

Increasingly, algorithms are used to decide whether to release people on bail or parole. The computer isn't deciding whether they've committed a crime. In effect, it's predicting whether they'll commit one in future. But ideally, we wouldn't just try and predict future crimes using an opaque algorithm. We'd try and prevent them. And that means understanding why people reoffend 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. 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. One of the most popular conspiracy theories currently is the idea of chemtrails. This is a false claim that aeroplane vapor trails are actually a deliberate attempt to drug populations or control the weather with chemicals. Unlike the science of aeroplane wings, it's actually pretty straightforward to explain where vapour trails come from. Jet engines produce water vapour in their exhaust. When

this hot vapour hits the very cold air outside, it freezes, creating a streak of tiny ice crystals in the sky. So why do claims like this persist? It's partly down to trust. Unless you want to brush up on thermodynamics or buy a jet engine, at some point you're going to have to take someone's word that this is how the science works. But conspiracy theories are also about community. If people go against scientific consensus, it can make them feel like an independent thinker and part of a resistance. Then there's that crucial element, the need for an explanation beyond simple coincidence. Whether we want to push the boundaries of science

or push back on conspiracy theories, we need to appreciate this very human desire to explain. I've made mistakes sometimes of neglecting this in the past. I've given people an oversimplastic explanation for complex process and created even more confusion than there was before. Or in a situation with limited time, I've told people it's not possible to properly untangle the complexity involved. And in doing so, I failed to acknowledge that very deep-rooted need to explain. 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 published claims. I've turned to experts with good track records. I've sensed checked sources. I've looked for inconsisten claims. I've turned to experts with good track records. I've sensed 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. That was Adam Kaczarski at TEDx London in 2025.

If you're curious about TED's curation, find out more at TED.comondon in 2025. If you're curious about TED's curation, find out more at TED.com slash curationguidelines. And that's it for today's show. TED Talks Daily is part of the TED Audio Collective. This episode was produced and edited by our team, Martha Estefanos, Oliver Friedman, Brian Green, Lucy Little, Alejandra Salazar, and Tonsika Sarmarnivon. It was mixed by Christopher Faisy

Bogan, additional support from Emma Taubner and Daniela Balarezzo. I'm Elise Huw. I'll be back tomorrow with a fresh idea for your feed. Thanks for listening. This episode is sponsored by Sell Off Vacations. You know how sometimes a single experience, one moment, one place, can shift your perspective entirely? Travel does that. It moves us not just physically but emotionally, even spiritually. We deserve those moments. That's where Sell-Off Vacations comes in. For over 30 years they've been helping Canadians travel happy, whether it's a sun-soaked getaway, a cruise through the Mediterranean, or a local escape right here at home. Their community of travel experts have actually been to the places you're dreaming about,

and they're ready to help you plan your perfect trip, no matter your budget. Because happy travels start with sell-off vacations, and when you're ready to book, their best price promise means they won't just match a lower price, they'll beat it. That kind of peace of mind is rare and valuable. So if you're thinking about your next trip, even if it's just a daydream, remember, happy travels start with the experts at sell-off vacations. Visit selloffvacations.com today. Audible invites you to listen for the thrill. Escape the everyday with stories that leave you breathless.

Whether it's heart-pounding suspense like the Audible Originals 10 Rules for the Perfect Murder by James Patterson, or the downloaded with Brendan Fraser, or how about a fantasy adventure like Onyx Storm, or Amelia Heart's The Sirens? Audible has an incredible selection of audiobooks, podcasts, and originals all in one app. Start listening and discover what's beyond the edge of your seat when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.ca.

An Apple Watch for your kids lets you stay connected with them wherever they go. They can call you to pick them up at grandma's or text you because they forgot their lunch again. Their watch will even send an alert to let you know they finally got to school. Great for kids who don't have a phone because because their Apple Watch is managed by you, on your iPhone. iPhone XS are later required with additional wireless service plan.