are we alone cosmic loneliness and the longing to believe with adam kirsch
Has the earth been visited by extraterrestrials?
地球有没有外星人来过？
Are we alone?
我们孤独吗？
Despite no formal evidence for conscious life outside of earth, the belief that we are not alone has become more common among both scientists and everyday people.
尽管没有正式证据证明地球之外存在有意识的生命，但“我们并不孤单”的信念在科学家和普通人中变得越来越普遍。
Listen as author Adam Kirsch talks to EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the urge to believe that there are sentient beings elsewhere in the universe and that these aliens want to connect with human beings.
听作家 Adam Kirsch 与 EconTalk 主持人 Russ Roberts 谈论相信宇宙其他地方存在众生并且这些外星人想要与人类建立联系的冲动。
Topics discussed include why belief in extraterrestrials has become more mainstream, existential loneliness, religion, extinction, and Elon Musk's desire to get to Mars.
讨论的主题包括为什么对外星人的信仰变得更加主流、存在的孤独、宗教、灭绝以及埃隆·马斯克登陆火星的愿望。
We are no longer alone in one sense.
从某种意义上说，我们不再孤单。
We have created the aliens who are extremely intelligent and whose future development and meaning for us is uncertain.
我们创造了极其聪明的外星人，但他们的未来发展和对我们的意义是不确定的。
AI is in many ways more interesting than any aliens we have dreamed of.
人工智能在很多方面比我们梦想的任何外星人都更有趣。
However in surpassing us already in so many ways it too may make many of us feel less unique and even more lonely.
然而，在很多方面超越我们的同时，也可能让我们中的许多人感到不那么独特，甚至更加孤独。
I would also add that there is no real replacemet for a personal God Who loves and cares for each one of us.
我还要补充一点，没有真正的替代品可以替代一位爱护我们每个人的个人上帝。
I was pretty disappointed by what I perceived as the author’s superficial understanding of how Christians view faith and reason.
我对作者对基督徒如何看待信仰和理性的肤浅理解感到非常失望。
Using the miracle at Lourdes, France as similar to belief in aliens?
把法国卢尔德的奇迹当作外星人的信仰？
“Which is–sort of by definition, religious faith is not supposed to be susceptible to empirical proof.
“从定义上来说，宗教信仰不应该受到经验证据的影响。
And, that’s why you say it’s faith rather than evidence.
而且，这就是为什么你说这是信仰而不是证据。
‘Faith is the evidence of things not seen,’ is what the New Testament says.”
新约圣经说，‘信心是未见之事的确据’。”
Saying something is “unseen” is not synonymous with “no evidence”.
说某件事“看不见”并不等于“没有证据”。
A simple google search of centuries of Catholic thought from Aquinas, Augustine, et al would show this is a gross misrepresentation of Catholic thought.
对阿奎那、奥古斯丁等人几个世纪以来的天主教思想进行简单的谷歌搜索就会发现这是对天主教思想的严重歪曲。
I bring up Catholics specifically, because he goes on to site Lourdes, France of all places at 19: 47.
我特别提到天主教徒，因为他于 19 点 47 分前往法国卢尔德。
What I’m really talking about more is–and this is an example I use in the book–Lourdes is a Catholic holy site because in the 19th century there was a young girl named Bernadette who said that she saw the Virgin Mary.
我真正要谈论的更多的是——这是我在书中使用的一个例子——卢尔德是一个天主教圣地，因为在19世纪有一个名叫伯纳黛特的年轻女孩说她看到了圣母玛利亚。
The Virgin Mary appeared to her on a number of occasions and spoke to her.
圣母玛利亚多次出现在她面前并对她说话。
And, at first, the local priest in Lourdes in southern France didn’t believe her and said, ‘This is a girl making stuff up.’ And then, as the word spread and more and more people heard about it, the Church changed its mind and said, ‘We recognize that this is true.
起初，法国南部卢尔德当地的牧师不相信她，并说：“这是一个女孩编造的东西。”然后，随着消息的传播，越来越多的人听说了这件事，教会改变了主意，并说：“我们认识到这是真的。”
We believe it happened.’ And, Lourdes became an official pilgrimage site, and this became a recognized part of Catholic belief.
我们相信它发生了。’而且，卢尔德成为官方朝圣地，这也成为天主教信仰的公认组成部分。
So, that’s an example of how–that original claim is the same kind of claim as, ‘I saw a flying saucer.
所以，这是一个例子，说明最初的主张与“我看到一个飞碟”是同一类主张。
I can’t prove it, but I’m telling you this happened to me.’ So, then, really, the question is, how do you get from, ‘I’m telling you this happened to me,’ to, ‘You’re a crank,’ versus, ‘You are a revered figure because we believe you’?
我无法证明这一点，但我告诉你这发生在我身上。”所以，实际上，问题是，你如何从“我告诉你这发生在我身上”转变为“你是个怪人”，而不是“你是一个受人尊敬的人物，因为我们相信你”？
Sure.
当然。
But this actually cuts both ways.
但这实际上是双向的。
This is actually evidence that the priest was (rightfully) skeptical at first, consistent with what a good scientist would do, and only changed his mind after confronted with consistent testimony and information that supported Bernadette’s (a poor, uneducated peasant) claims.
这实际上证明牧师一开始（理所应当）持怀疑态度，这与一位优秀科学家的做法是一致的，只是在面对支持伯纳黛特（一位贫穷的、未受过教育的农民）主张的一致证词和信息后才改变了主意。
The author’s explanation that the Church simply “went along with it because of mob mentality” presumes that the underlying claims were false – not that the Church changed its skepticism because it was confronted with new evidence.
作者的解释是，教会只是“因为暴民心态而附和”，其前提是潜在的主张是错误的——而不是教会因为面临新的证据而改变了怀疑态度。
But the author leaves out (perhaps he doesn’t in his book?) the fact that the Catholic Church requires significant, 3rd party evidence (and a “Devil’s Advocate”) to investigate such extraordinary claims.
但作者遗漏了（也许他在书中没有遗漏？）天主教会需要重要的第三方证据（以及“魔鬼代言人”）来调查这种非同寻常的主张。
As Carl Sagan said, such claims require extraordinary evidence.
正如卡尔·萨根所说，此类主张需要非凡的证据。
What establishes Lourdes, France as a continued place for pilgrimage is not only the original miracle, but dozens of documented medical miracles since.
使法国卢尔德成为持续朝圣之地的不仅是最初的奇迹，还有此后数十个记录在案的医学奇迹。
A quick google search since you could write a Ph.D dissertation on the bizarre occurrences at Lourdes.
快速谷歌搜索，因为你可以写一篇关于卢尔德奇异事件的博士论文。
“The Catholic Church’s recognition of a “miracle” at Lourdes is based on a rigorous, independent medical investigation conducted by the Bureau des Constatations Médicales (Medical Bureau of the Sanctuary) since 1883.
“天主教会对卢尔德‘奇迹’的认可是基于Bureau des Constatations Médicales（圣所医疗局）自1883年以来进行的严格、独立的医学调查。
This process is unique in the world because it involves non-Catholic and non-believing physicians who examine each case before it can be considered for official recognition”
这个过程在世界上是独一无二的，因为它涉及非天主教徒和非信徒医生，他们在考虑获得官方认可之前对每个病例进行检查”
Does the author have an explanation or opinion on public events at Fatima?
作者对法蒂玛的公共活动有解释或意见吗？
Also called “the miracle of the sun”?
也被称为“太阳的奇迹”？
Joe – It sounds like you’re saying there are real examples of divine magic that have occurred, that are provable using the tools of history and science, but that only the Catholic Church is systematic and open-minded enough to recognize the proof.
乔 – 听起来你是在说确实存在神圣魔法的例子，可以使用历史和科学的工具来证明，但只有天主教会足够系统和开放，能够承认这些证据。
I don’t begrudge you your beliefs, but I do think that’s the kind of thinking that Adam is talking about.
我并不嫉妒你的信仰，但我确实认为这就是亚当所说的那种想法。
It seems like Adam is taking a view directly opposite that of former EconTalk guest Ross Douthat.
Adam 的观点似乎与前 EconTalk 嘉宾 Ross Douthat 的观点完全相反。
To poorly paraphrase Ross, “yes, all the evidence is anecdotal and a little vague, but there’s enough of it by pure tonnage that we should take it seriously.” I’d be interested to know what Adam thinks of that counter position.
用罗斯的话说，“是的，所有的证据都是轶事，而且有点模糊，但就纯粹的吨位而言，我们应该认真对待它。”我很想知道亚当对这个相反立场的看法。
I assume he’d look to neurology and psychology for explanations first.
我猜他会首先从神经学和心理学中寻求解释。
Hi DG, thank you for the thoughtful response.
您好，DG，感谢您的周到回复。
On the contrary, I do not believe in “magic” nor do I think that “only the Catholic Church is systematic and open-minded enough to recognize the proof” – my point was simply that out of all the religious examples one could use of frauds, deceit, and uncritical “faith”, Lourdes, France is a poor example.
相反，我不相信“魔法”，也不认为“只有天主教会足够系统和开放，才能承认证据”——我的观点很简单，在所有可以利用欺诈、欺骗和不加批判的“信仰”的宗教例子中，法国卢尔德就是一个糟糕的例子。
With all charity to you, would you be willing to read through the original 3rd party investigative documents, and medical occurrences related to Bernadette and Lourdes, France and let me know what you think?
出于对您的善意，您愿意阅读原始的第三方调查文件以及与法国伯纳黛特和卢尔德有关的医疗事件，并让我知道您的想法吗？
I should note that I am professional scientist and used to have a very poor opinion of the Catholic Church and “faith” until I dug a little deeper.
我应该指出，我是专业科学家，过去对天主教会和“信仰”的看法很差，直到我更深入地挖掘。
Something that has struck me and might resonate with you, is that the entire scientific method relies on certain pre-suppositions, axioms, or “beliefs” we must all agree to hold true before we can actually use the scientific method.
让我印象深刻并可能引起您共鸣的是，整个科学方法都依赖于某些预设、公理或“信念”，我们必须一致同意坚持真理，然后才能真正使用科学方法。
In other words, you must have “belief” in the unseen in order to develop evidence.
换句话说，你必须对看不见的事物有“信念”才能找到证据。
One presupposition is that “truth is inherently better than falsehood, and that clarity is better than delusion.” Science cannot empirically justify why pursuing truth is valuable – that is a value judgement made before research starts.
一个前提是“真理本质上优于谎言，清晰优于妄想”。科学无法凭经验证明为什么追求真理是有价值的——这是在研究开始之前做出的价值判断。
It also pre-supposes an absolute moral norm that truth is inherently valuable.
它还预设了一个绝对的道德规范，即真理具有内在的价值。
There are also the axioms of uniformity in nature (that the laws of physics and nature are uniform across space and time, and that what holds true in a lab today held true billions of years ago) and causality (that natural effects have natural causes, and that events do not occur arbitrarily without antecedent physical conditions).
还有自然一致性公理（物理和自然定律在空间和时间上是一致的，今天在实验室中适用的东西在数十亿年前也适用）和因果关系（自然效应有自然原因，如果没有先决的物理条件，事件不会任意发生）。
And so Catholic thought, and especially Aquinas and others would ask “what do these necessary prerequisites for understanding our universe suggest to us about the nature of the universe itself”.
因此，天主教思想，尤其是阿奎那和其他人会问“理解我们的宇宙的这些必要先决条件向我们暗示了宇宙本身的本质是什么”。
From here, there are several philosophical arguments that try to reconcile why these axioms work so well in our universe.
从这里开始，有几个哲学论证试图解释为什么这些公理在我们的宇宙中如此有效。
Aquinas reduced some of this to the “unmovable mover.” There is certainly a big leap from these ideas to “Jesus Christ is the son of God”, but my point is that Catholic philosophy and reason had a big hand in developing the fertile ground from which the enlightenment and modern science developed (think the University system).
阿奎那将其中一些简化为“不可移动的推动者”。从这些观念到“耶稣基督是上帝的儿子”当然有一个巨大的飞跃，但我的观点是，天主教哲学和理性在发展启蒙运动和现代科学发展的沃土方面发挥了重要作用（想想大学系统）。
It would be unscientific of us to “believe” that the reality only exists if it can be measured.
我们“相信”现实只有在可以测量的情况下才存在，这是不科学的。
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp 159:
天主教教义问答，第 159 页：
“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.
“尽管信仰高于理性，但信仰与理性之间永远不会有任何真正的差异。
Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” 37
既然揭示奥秘和注入信仰的同一位上帝赋予了人类心灵理性之光，上帝就不能否认自己，真理也不能与真理相矛盾。” 37
“Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
“因此，对所有知识领域的系统研究，只要以真正科学的方式进行，并且不凌驾于道德法则之上，就永远不会与信仰发生冲突，因为世界的事物和信仰的事物都来自同一个上帝。
The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” 38
谦卑而坚持不懈地探索自然秘密的人，可以说是在上帝之手的引导下，不由自主地，因为是上帝，万物的守护者，创造了万物。” 38
“Out of all the religious examples one could use of frauds, deceit, and uncritical “faith”, Lourdes, France is a poor example.”
“在所有可以利用欺诈、欺骗和不加批判的‘信仰’的宗教例子中，法国卢尔德就是一个糟糕的例子。”
I don’t think Adam was accusing anyone of fraud.
我不认为亚当在指控任何人欺诈。
He was making a distinction between a general belief like “I believe in God” and a much more specific empirical claim like “I was visited by an angel.” His point was that the latter is, epistemically, much more similar to “I was visited by an alien” than it is to a general belief in God.
他区分了像“我相信上帝”这样的一般信念和像“天使来拜访我”这样更具体的经验主张。他的观点是，后者在认识上更类似于“我被外星人拜访了”，而不是对上帝的普遍信仰。
As I mentioned above, Ross Douthat explicitly makes a similar comparison, but uses it as support for taking religious and supernatural claims more seriously.
正如我上面提到的，罗斯·杜塔特明确地进行了类似的比较，但将其用作更严肃地对待宗教和超自然主张的支持。
“Would you be willing to read through the original 3rd party investigative documents, and medical occurrences related to Bernadette and Lourdes, France and let me know what you think?”
“您愿意阅读原始的第三方调查文件以及与法国伯纳黛特和卢尔德有关的医疗事件，并让我知道您的想法吗？”
I actually think this gets very close to what Adam is talking about.
我实际上认为这与亚当所说的非常接近。
If you talk to someone who believes aliens landed at Roswell, they may very say something like, “Have you actually looked at the evidence?
如果你和那些相信外星人登陆罗斯威尔的人交谈，他们可能会说这样的话：“你真的看过证据吗？
Read the witness testimony and the original documents and then decide for yourself.” The same thing happens with people who believe the moon landing was faked, or any number of other conspiratorial claims.
阅读证人证词和原始文件，然后自己决定。”同样的事情也发生在那些相信登月是伪造的或任何其他阴谋论的人身上。
I don’t mean that as an accusation that these people are irrational.
我的意思并不是指责这些人不理性。
In some ways they can be hyper-rational.
在某些方面，他们可能是超理性的。
Someone who has spent 20 years studying Roswell will have looked at vastly more evidence than I have.
花了 20 年时间研究罗斯威尔的人会比我研究更多的证据。
They may know every witness statement, every document, every inconsistency in the official account, and every counterargument.
他们可能知道每一份证人证言、每份文件、官方叙述中的每一个不一致之处以及每一个反驳。
But nobody evaluates all of their beliefs that way.
但没有人以这种方式评估他们所有的信念。
It would be impossible.
这是不可能的。
I believe the moon landing happened without independently reviewing NASA’s telemetry.
我相信登月是在没有独立审查美国宇航局遥测数据的情况下发生的。
I rely constantly on experts, institutions, priors, and other people’s judgments.
我经常依赖专家、机构、先验知识和其他人的判断。
So, the interesting question, then, is why a particular claim gets selected for extraordinary scrutiny.
因此，有趣的问题是，为什么某个特定的主张会被选中进行特别审查。
A person may spend years examining every anomaly surrounding Roswell while accepting millions of other claims using ordinary epistemic shortcuts.
一个人可能会花费数年时间检查罗斯威尔周围的每一个异常现象，同时使用普通的认知捷径接受数百万个其他主张。
That doesn’t mean their reasoning about Roswell is necessarily bad.
这并不意味着他们对罗斯威尔的推理一定是错误的。
But the selection of Roswell as the thing that deserves this enormous investment of attention may itself be driven by a pre-existing narrative.
但选择罗斯威尔作为值得如此巨大关注的事物本身可能是由预先存在的叙述所驱动的。
That is what I see as analogous here.
这就是我在这里看到的类比。
Saying “go read all the evidence surrounding Lourdes and decide for yourself” is in some ways completely reasonable.
说“去阅读有关卢尔德的所有证据并自己做出决定”在某些方面是完全合理的。
But there are millions of religious apparitions, UFO sightings, paranormal and cryptid sitings, historical mysteries…
但还有数以百万计的宗教幻影、UFO 目击事件、超自然现象和神秘地点、历史谜团……
but sadly, I’m not Special Agent Fox Mulder.
但遗憾的是，我不是特工福克斯·穆德。
So there is a prior epistemic question about which extraordinary claims deserve that kind of investigation in the first place.
因此，存在一个先验的认知问题：哪些非同寻常的主张首先值得进行这种调查。
“One presupposition is that “truth is inherently better than falsehood, and that clarity is better than delusion.”
“一个前提是，‘真理本质上优于谎言，清晰优于错觉。’”
There are pretty obvious practical reasons to prefer true beliefs to false ones.
有相当明显的实际原因让人们更喜欢正确的信念而不是错误的信念。
If I correctly believe there is a cliff in front of me, I can avoid walking off it.
如果我正确地相信我面前有一座悬崖，我就可以避免走下悬崖。
And you can’t build a bridge across the cliff if your beliefs about physics and engineering are mostly false.
如果你对物理和工程学的信念大多是错误的，你就无法在悬崖上架起一座桥梁。
But I also think truth has value for its own sake.
但我也认为真理本身就有价值。
Philosophers have given different reasons for this view (I’m partial to Aristotle on this).
哲学家们对这种观点给出了不同的理由（在这一点上我偏向亚里士多德）。
But I’m also satisfied with Adam’s answer.
但我对亚当的回答也很满意。
I value truth, because I value truth and I don’t really need to give more of a reason than that.
我重视真理，因为我重视真理，而且我真的不需要给出更多的理由。
“There are also the axioms of uniformity in nature (that the laws of physics and nature are uniform across space and time, and that what holds true in a lab today held true billions of years ago) and causality (that natural effects have natural causes, and that events do not occur arbitrarily without antecedent physical conditions).”
“还有自然一致性公理（物理和自然定律在空间和时间上是一致的，今天在实验室中适用的东西在数十亿年前也适用）和因果关系（自然效应有自然原因，如果没有先决的物理条件，事件不会任意发生）。”
I agree that there is a real philosophical issue here.
我同意这里存在一个真正的哲学问题。
Hume gives us the classic example – If I watch one billiard ball hit another and the second ball moves, I observe a sequence of events.
休谟给了我们一个经典的例子——如果我看到一个台球击中另一个台球并且第二个球移动，我就会观察到一系列事件。
I don’t literally observe some metaphysical thing called “causation.” And even if I observe the same thing once, twice, or a million times, there is no deductive proof that it must happen the same way the next time.
我并没有真正观察到一些称为“因果关系”的形而上学的东西。即使我观察同一件事一次、两次或一百万次，也没有演绎证据表明它下次一定会以同样的方式发生。
That is Hume’s problem of induction.
这就是休谟的归纳问题。
But, that does not mean that the assumption of regularity is equivalent to any other belief that cannot be deductively proven.
但是，这并不意味着规律性假设等同于任何其他无法演绎证明的信念。
If absolutely no regularity could be assumed, then there would be no basis for belief or choice.
如果绝对不能假定规律性，那么信仰或选择就没有基础。
That is more of a pragmatic justification than a logical proof, but it is a fundamental and unavoidable one.
这更多的是一种实用的理由，而不是逻辑证明，但它是一个基本且不可避免的证明。
DG, this was a great reply – I’m glad I came back and checked the thread.
DG，这是一个很好的回复——我很高兴我回来检查了这个帖子。
This sentence in particular resonated with me:
这句话特别引起我的共鸣：
“So, the interesting question, then, is why a particular claim gets selected for extraordinary scrutiny.
“所以，有趣的问题是，为什么某个特定的主张会被选中进行特别审查。
A person may spend years examining every anomaly surrounding Roswell while accepting millions of other claims using ordinary epistemic shortcuts.
一个人可能会花费数年时间检查罗斯威尔周围的每一个异常现象，同时使用普通的认知捷径接受数百万个其他主张。
That doesn’t mean their reasoning about Roswell is necessarily bad.
这并不意味着他们对罗斯威尔的推理一定是错误的。
But the selection of Roswell as the thing that deserves this enormous investment of attention may itself be driven by a pre-existing narrative.”
但选择罗斯威尔作为值得如此巨大关注的事物本身可能是由预先存在的叙述所驱动的。”
This was one of the first questions I asked myself about Lourdes, France, and I concede the statistical challenge.
这是我问自己关于法国卢尔德的第一个问题，我承认统计上的挑战。
If millions of people visit the same location each year looking for a miracle (i.e., selection bias), then certainly, simply by chance, some of them will experience a healing or “miracle”.
如果每年有数百万人访问同一地点寻找奇迹（即选择偏差），那么当然，只是偶然，他们中的一些人会经历治愈或“奇迹”。
But the “miracle” would have occurred even if they had never visited Lourdes.
但即使他们从未去过卢尔德，“奇迹”也会发生。
And outside of Lourdes, it never would have been recorded as a religious event.
在卢尔德之外，它永远不会被记录为宗教事件。
So, you might look at the over 7000 cases of healings occurring (72 of which are officially recognized by the Catholic Church via 3rd party medical experts) and conclude that it should be expected given the sheer volume of expectant tourists with medical conditions.
因此，您可能会查看正在发生的 7000 多个治疗案例（其中 72 个案例通过第三方医疗专家得到了天主教会的正式认可），并得出结论认为，考虑到患有健康问题的预期游客数量庞大，这应该是可以预料到的。
With all that said (Joe, you are only digging into the details because you have a selection bias towards a Catholic miracle), the facts outlined in the 71st and 72nd miracles are simply astounding.
话虽如此（乔，你只是在挖掘细节，因为你对天主教奇迹有选择偏见），第 71 个和第 72 个奇迹中概述的事实简直令人震惊。
Not by my standards, but by modern medicine (they took years and up to 30 doctors (you can fact check me) to review and conclude by majority that they were inexplicable).
不是按照我的标准，而是按照现代医学（他们花了数年时间和多达 30 名医生（你可以事实检查我）来审查并得出大多数人的结论，他们是无法解释的）。
I only bring these up because they occurred recently and were subject to modern medical tests.
我之所以提出这些只是因为它们最近发生并且接受了现代医学测试。
The conditions that were “cured” were so dramatic that it seems like anyone who deals with these rehabilitating diseases (doctors and regular people alike) would want to know about them.
“治愈”的情况是如此引人注目，似乎任何处理这些康复疾病的人（医生和普通人）都想了解它们。
And yes, the context of the cures is also relevant – occurring at the specific location, with water from a specific spring that was dug at the request from the supposed apparition.
是的，治疗的背景也是相关的——发生在特定的地点，水来自根据所谓的幽灵的要求挖掘的特定泉水。
Thinking about Pascal’s wager..
思考帕斯卡的赌注..
if these are all coincidences, who cares (except the people who have been healed).
如果这些都是巧合，谁在乎（除了那些已经被治愈的人）。
But if it is true….?
但如果这是真的……？
As I said, I’m not an expert on it, and I don’t plan to become one.
正如我所说，我不是这方面的专家，也不打算成为专家。
The fact that the medical establishment does not generally accept the claims is enough for me.
医疗机构普遍不接受这些索赔这一事实对我来说就足够了。
Why?
为什么？
Because if I look at the institutions that have done the most to improve human health over the past several centuries, the medical establishment is beating the Catholic Church by a pretty wide margin.
因为如果我看看过去几个世纪以来为改善人类健康做出最大努力的机构，就会发现医疗机构以相当大的优势击败了天主教会。
Obviously, the medical establishment is not going to be right every time.
显然，医疗机构不会每次都是正确的。
But to Adam’s broader point, if I want medical advice, I’m going to put substantial weight on the consensus of medical experts, over doing my own research.
但就亚当更广泛的观点而言，如果我需要医疗建议，我会更加重视医学专家的共识，而不是自己的研究。
The obvious problem with Pascal’s Wager is that, for it to work, you have to assume Pascal knows with fairly high confidence what God wants people to do and how that translates to the afterlife.
帕斯卡赌注的一个明显问题是，为了让它发挥作用，你必须假设帕斯卡非常有信心地知道上帝希望人们做什么，以及这如何转化为来世。
Even if Pascal is right that God exists, and is almost exactly right about what God wants, one relatively small omission could flip the wager on its head.
即使帕斯卡关于上帝存在的观点是正确的，并且对于上帝想要什么的看法几乎完全正确，一个相对较小的遗漏也可能会推翻赌注。
For example, perhaps God especially dislikes people who cynically “believe” in Him as a kind of divine arbitrage strategy.
例如，也许上帝特别不喜欢那些愤世嫉俗地“相信”他作为一种神圣套利策略的人。
If you take Pascal’s Wager as a general theological or philosophical argument, that seems like a shockingly bad mistake.
如果你将帕斯卡的赌注视为一般的神学或哲学论证，那似乎是一个令人震惊的严重错误。
But Pascal was obviously a very smart guy — his name is in every high-school physics textbook, for goodness’ sake — so perhaps the problem isn’t Pascal’s, but in the misapplication of Pascal’s argument by others.
但帕斯卡显然是一个非常聪明的人——天哪，他的名字出现在每本高中物理教科书上——所以也许问题不在于帕斯卡，而在于其他人对帕斯卡的论点的误用。
My guess is that Pascal was making a narrower rhetorical argument to people much like himself: French intellectuals who were Catholic, but were beginning to doubt their faith as science and rationalism advanced.
我的猜测是，帕斯卡正在向像他这样的人进行更狭隘的修辞论证：法国知识分子是天主教徒，但随着科学和理性主义的进步，他们开始怀疑他们的信仰。
In that context, the “many gods” problem matters much less, because everyone in the conversation begins with a very similar theological framework.
在这种情况下，“多神”问题就不那么重要了，因为对话中的每个人都从一个非常相似的神学框架开始。
But I’ll offer a Pascal-lite wager that I think is actually stronger for atheists: believing in God may make your life better even if God does not exist.
但我会提出一个我认为对无神论者来说实际上更强大的帕斯卡式打赌：即使上帝不存在，相信上帝也可能会让你的生活变得更好。
Religion can provide access to a community, sometimes cheaper or better education for your kids, and a simple moral framework that is probably mostly useful as long as it is not taken too far.
宗教可以提供进入社区的机会，有时可以为你的孩子提供更便宜或更好的教育，以及一个简单的道德框架，只要不走得太远，它可能是最有用的。
Many religious practices (nightly prayer, weekly church attendance, collective singing etc) may also be good for mental health and general well-being regardless of whether the underlying metaphysical claims are true.
许多宗教活动（每晚祈祷、每周去教堂、集体歌唱等）也可能有益于心理健康和整体福祉，无论潜在的形而上学主张是否正确。
So why don’t I believe?
那我为什么不相信呢？
Because, as I said above, I care (maybe to an irrational degree) about my beliefs being literally true.
因为，正如我上面所说，我关心（也许到了非理性的程度）我的信念是否真实。
Is there really any respected scientist who says definitively that we are the only intelligent life in the universe?
真的有一位受人尊敬的科学家明确表示我们是宇宙中唯一的智慧生命吗？
However unlikely one might be able to estimate it, zero doesn’t seem science-based.
无论人们如何估计它，零似乎都没有科学依据。
Single celled: 10-90%.
单细胞：10-90%。
Finding it: orders of magnitude less likely than finding intelligent life.
找到它：比找到智慧生命的可能性低几个数量级。
Maybe similarly likely if on Mars.
如果在火星上，可能也有类似的可能性。
Intelligent: <10%, more likely less than 1%.
聪明：<10%，更有可能低于1%。
Finding it: Some orders of magnitude less.
发现它：少了几个数量级。
God: many orders of magnitude less than finding life elsewhere.
上帝：比在其他地方找到生命要少很多数量级。
Surely it is impossible to reach a rationale conclusion that there is definitely no other intelligent life in the universe.
当然，不可能得出宇宙中绝对不存在其他智慧生命的合理结论。
Even if it were the case that there is no such life, all we can really say is that we have not seen any evidence of intelligent life.
即使不存在这样的生命，我们也只能说我们没有看到任何智慧生命的证据。
But given the lifespan of the universe and the number of planets etc the proposition of possible cases we have been able to examine is infinitesimally small.
但考虑到宇宙的寿命和行星的数量等，我们能够检查的可能情况的命题是无限小的。
But also I don’t believe it is feasible to conclude either that there definitely is other intelligent life, or to estimate the (less than 100%) likelihood of there being such life.
但我也不认为得出肯定存在其他智慧生命的结论，或者估计存在这种生命的可能性（小于 100%）是可行的。
Adam Kirsch: I think the answer is: mattering is something that only happens with human beings.
Adam Kirsch：我认为答案是：重要的事情只发生在人类身上。
And so, it’s the same answer as morality.
所以，这与道德的答案是一样的。
Why is it important to do what’s good instead of what’s evil?
为什么行善比行恶更重要？
One answer is because God told us to.
答案之一是因为神告诉我们这样做。
But, if God didn’t tell us to, then what are the other answers?
但是，如果上帝没有告诉我们，那么其他答案是什么？
People who don’t believe God told us to still believe in good and evil.
不相信上帝的人告诉我们仍然要相信善与恶。
They still want things to happen and other things not to happen.
他们仍然希望某些事情发生，而另一些事情不发生。
But, they would say that the basis of that is us .
但是，他们会说，基础是我们。
It’s not God: it’s us.
这不是上帝：是我们。
We are the ones who decide for whom it matters that there’s good rather than evil.
我们是决定对谁来说善而不是恶的人。
We’re the ones for whom it matters whether there’s mind in the universe or not.
对我们来说，宇宙中是否有思想很重要。
And, in fact, on a sort of materialist view, that has always been the case.
事实上，从某种唯物主义观点来看，情况一直如此。
I mean, there’s never really been any other point of view except ours.
我的意思是，除了我们的观点之外，从来没有任何其他观点。
A human being can have no point of view except a human point of view.
除了人类的观点之外，人类不可能有任何观点。
And so, if something matters, it means it matters for us.
因此，如果某件事很重要，那就意味着它对我们很重要。
And, I think that’s the answer.
而且，我认为这就是答案。
It matters for us because it matters for us.
这对我们很重要，因为它对我们很重要。
And, we are the kind of creature for whom it matters, or we have decided that it matters, but that there’s no better explanation than that.
而且，我们是那种认为它很重要的生物，或者我们已经决定它很重要，但没有比这更好的解释了。
Russ Roberts: Yeah, I don’t find that persuasive.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，我觉得这没有说服力。
But, a topic for another conversation.
但是，这是另一个话题。
I was surprised that Russ did not find this persuasive, and so I’d really like to hear that other conversation.
我很惊讶 Russ 认为这没有说服力，所以我真的很想听听其他谈话。
For me, it seems one could just as easily ask the question, “Why does [insert name of god here] matter?
对我来说，似乎人们可以很容易地提出这样一个问题：“为什么[在这里插入上帝的名字]很重要？
The only answer I can come up with is, a god matters to the people who believe in it.
我能想到的唯一答案是，神对于信仰它的人来说很重要。
The whole pantheon of Hindu gods matters not a bit to the devout Christian.
印度教诸神的万神殿对于虔诚的基督徒来说一点也不重要。
The sacrifice of Christ on the cross matters not at all to the devout Jew or Muslim.
基督在十字架上的牺牲对于虔诚的犹太人或穆斯林来说根本不重要。
There are very, very few people left for whom the Greek or Norse gods matter, etc. etc., etc.
对于希腊或北欧诸神而言，只剩下非常非常少的人了，等等。
Pick any topic: good and evil, the Pythagorean Theorem, the origins of the universe, general and special relativity, anything matters only because it matters to people, and only to the people for whom it matters.
选择任何主题：善与恶、毕达哥拉斯定理、宇宙起源、广义相对论和狭义相对论，任何事情都重要，只是因为它对人们重要，而且只对它所关心的人重要。
Still, Russ is a bright guy.
尽管如此，拉斯还是一个聪明的人。
There must be a reason why he doesn’t find this argument persuasive.
他认为这个论点没有说服力，一定是有原因的。
I do hope we get to hear that conversation some day.
我确实希望有一天我们能听到那次谈话。
I quite agree, as you have pointed out, that religious issues matter only to a proportion of people and this can be a very small proportion.
我非常同意，正如你所指出的，宗教问题只对一部分人重要，而且这个比例可能很小。
But I think we can generalise from it.
但我认为我们可以从中概括。
To me the issue here was the inference that all of us on Earth should care greatly about the matters being discussed in this podcast.
对我来说，这里的问题是这样的推论：地球上的所有人都应该非常关心这个播客中讨论的问题。
As opposed to just the subset of people who already have a deep interest in the topic.
而不仅仅是已经对该主题产生浓厚兴趣的一小部分人。
I’m not sure if this was the point that Russ was making.
我不确定这是否是拉斯所表达的观点。
There seems to be erroneous recollections of the Covid period.
对新冠病毒时期的记忆似乎有误。
” at the time experts said we have to close schools…” does not apply after June 2020.
“当时专家说我们必须关闭学校……”不适用于 2020 年 6 月之后。
Many experts, including Fauci, advocating getting children back in schools and instituting safety protocols to limit risk.
包括福奇在内的许多专家主张让孩子们重返学校并制定安全协议以限制风险。
It is untrue that there was any expert consensus to close schools except for in the early days of the pandemic.
除了大流行初期之外，专家一致认为关闭学校是不真实的。
As for mask mandates–there is no consensus that they were wrong.
至于口罩强制令——没有一致认为它们是错误的。
This was the author’s comment that made me decide to not buy this book.
正是作者的评论让我决定不买这本书。
1.
1.
The vaccine was officiously promoted as preventing one from getting or transmitting Covid.
该疫苗被大力宣传为可以防止人们感染或传播新冠病毒。
It demonstrably did not, and I have no idea why this guy is clinging to this false proposition.
显然没有，我不知道为什么这个人坚持这个错误的主张。
2.
2.
People who refused the vaccine did not instead opt for “horse dewormer”, which I assume is his derisive description of Ivermectin.
拒绝接种疫苗的人并没有选择“马驱虫剂”，我认为这是他对伊维菌素的嘲讽描述。
Sure, you can find an example of anything, but vaccine reticence is not the same as taking off label medicines.
当然，你可以找到任何例子，但对疫苗的沉默并不等同于取消标签药物。
3.
3.
The discoverer of Ivermectin won a Nobel prize in medicine, and it wasn’t in veterinary medicine.
伊维菌素的发现者获得了诺贝尔医学奖，但不是兽医奖。
There is a reason all UFO photos are blurry or grainy; if they were not, then they would be IFOs — identified flying objects.
所有 UFO 照片都模糊或有颗粒感是有原因的；如果不是，那么它们将是 IFO——已识别的飞行物体。
I found the Mr. Kirsch’s discussion of ET life and UFOs quite engaging until this statement:
我发现基尔希先生对外星人生命和不明飞行物的讨论非常引人入胜，直到以下声明：
“ Similarly with COVID, experts said, ‘Take this vaccine.
“与新冠病毒类似，专家说，‘接种这种疫苗。
It’ll stop you from getting COVID.’ And, a surprising number of people said, ‘I don’t believe you.
它会阻止你感染新冠病毒。”而且，数量惊人的人说，“我不相信你。”
I’m not going to take it.
我不会接受它。
I would rather take a horse de-worming medicine.
我宁愿吃马驱虫药。
Which is also a medicine.
这也是一种药物。
It’s just that it’s not the medicine you, the expert, told me to take.
只是这不是你这位专家告诉我吃的药。
It’s a medicine that someone on social media told me to take.
这是社交媒体上有人告诉我服用的药物。
‘”
’”
The “vaccine” didn’t stop the COVID virus it mitigated it.
“疫苗”并没有阻止新冠病毒，而是减轻了病毒的强度。
So it was a theraputic instead of a vaccine.
所以它是一种治疗药物而不是疫苗。
The scientists/politicians who claimed it would stop the virus were wrong.
声称它可以阻止病毒的科学家/政治家是错误的。
The public saw they were wrong and didn’t acknowledge their mistake so they lost trust.
公众看到他们错了，却不承认自己的错误，因此失去了信任。
As far as using the term “horse dewormer” that is just Mr. Kirsch letting his political bias slip.
就使用“马驱虫剂”一词而言，基尔希先生只是放弃了他的政治偏见。
He could have said Ivermectin didn’t or Ivermectin was recommended.
他可以说伊维菌素没有，或者伊维菌素被推荐。
Ivermectin is an FDA approved human phramceutical not just a equine drug.
伊维菌素是 FDA 批准的人类药物，而不仅仅是马药。
In the end, he does work for the Atlantic and probably has to tow the party line or face the wrath of his uber progressive colleagues.
最后，他为《大西洋月刊》工作，可能不得不遵守党派路线，否则就会面临超级进步同事的愤怒。
The entire subject of how life evolves in the universe is fascinating.
宇宙中生命如何演化的整个主题非常有趣。
This conversation is a subset of it.
此对话是其中的一个子集。
Anyone who claims to have any evidence of alien life should be able to give a clear explanation of just how difficult it was for humans to take hold on earth.
任何声称拥有外星生命存在证据的人都应该能够清楚地解释人类在地球上扎根是多么困难。
The well known Drake equation outlines just how many factors are involved in the existence of life on a planet.
众所周知的德雷克方程概述了行星上生命存在涉及多少因素。
Since he created that equation we’ve uncovered evidence that many parts of the equation were incorrectly initially estimated, unsurprisingly.
自从他创建了这个方程以来，我们发现了证据表明方程的许多部分最初估计都是错误的，这并不奇怪。
We have discovered that the building blocks of life abound in our solar system.
我们发现太阳系中存在着大量生命的组成部分。
I think there is therefore a strong chance we’ll discover life and potentially quite complex life on the water world moons of Jupiter, which get heat from Jupiter’s gravitational effects.
因此，我认为我们很有可能在木星的水世界卫星上发现生命，甚至可能相当复杂的生命，这些卫星从木星的引力效应中获取热量。
But that’s not intelligent life.
但这不是智慧生命。
Just look at earth.
只要看看地球。
Dinosaurs were only upended by an asteroid radically changing the balance of life on earth.
恐龙只是被一颗小行星颠覆了，从根本上改变了地球上生命的平衡。
They were big, evolutionarily stable and were dominant for tens of millions of years.
它们体型庞大，进化稳定，并统治了数千万年。
Intelligence is not inevitable in an evolutionary path, it’s even hard to define.
智力在进化过程中并不是不可避免的，甚至很难定义。
I think we will discover lots of very simple life, eventually.
我想我们最终会发现很多非常简单的生活。
It is potentially true that we are the most intelligent species in the universe.
我们可能是宇宙中最聪明的物种。
Our world has become more brittle, like a beautifully crafted piece of glass or ice.
我们的世界变得更加脆弱，就像一块制作精美的玻璃或冰块。
Year on year we create more and more subtle and energetic outputs that extend our pleasure and comfort in ways my granny could only call fantasy.
年复一年，我们创造出越来越微妙和充满活力的输出，以我奶奶只能称之为幻想的方式扩展我们的快乐和舒适。
But that power also makes our world brittle and easily smashed.
但这种力量也让我们的世界变得脆弱且容易被粉碎。
When we see no evidence for a universe teeming with life and sophisticated structures we should ask why and ponder our current predicament.
当我们没有看到宇宙充满生命和复杂结构的证据时，我们应该问为什么并思考我们当前的困境。
Putin, Trump, Iran, China .
普京、特朗普、伊朗、中国。
.
。
.
。
have relatively dumb leaders whose intellect is far less than that of the creators of their most powerful weapons.
拥有相对愚蠢的领导人，他们的智力远远低于最强大武器的创造者。
That’s a dangerous mix and should give us pause to consider how small and fragile our small planet is and how big our potential effect is on it, and therefore on us all.
这是一个危险的组合，应该让我们停下来考虑一下我们的小星球是多么小和脆弱，以及我们对它乃至我们所有人的潜在影响有多大。
The global village gets smaller every day.
地球村一天天变小。
And these aliens somehow can traverse the universe and visit us surreptitiously, but can’t evade a random American on a Tuesday night, I mean, really???!
这些外星人可以以某种方式穿越宇宙并偷偷地拜访我们，但无法在周二晚上躲避随机的美国人，我的意思是，真的？？？！
It’s nice to believe there’s a friendly saviour out there, I’d like that too, but I’m busy mitigating risks and finding opportunities for myself, which is hard work and I think that people who seek UFO’s existence have largely given up on living that way, they’re hoping for the home run every time they swing – they’d be better focusing on first base.
很高兴相信有一个友好的救世主在那里，我也希望如此，但我正忙着降低风险并为自己寻找机会，这是一项艰苦的工作，我认为寻求 UFO 存在的人基本上已经放弃了这种生活方式，他们希望每次击球时都能打出全垒打 - 他们最好专注于一垒。
Additional ideas and people mentioned in this podcast episode:
本播客节目中提到的其他想法和人物：
A few more readings and background resources:
更多阅读材料和背景资源：
More related EconTalk podcast episodes, by Category:
更多相关的 EconTalk 播客剧集，按类别：
* As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.
* 作为亚马逊合作伙伴，Econlib 通过符合条件的购买赚取收入。
Russ Roberts: Today is June 27th, 2026, and my guest is Adam Kirsch, a senior editor at The Atlantic magazine.
Russ Roberts：今天是 2026 年 6 月 27 日，我的嘉宾是《大西洋》杂志的高级编辑 Adam Kirsch。
Adam was last here in January of 2025 discussing his book, On Settler Colonialism .
亚当上次来这里是在 2025 年 1 月，当时正在讨论他的书《论定居者殖民主义》。
Our topic for today is his latest book, We Want to Believe: How Aliens Went Mainstream and Why It Matters .
我们今天的主题是他的最新著作《我们想要相信：外星人如何成为主流及其为何如此重要》。
Adam, welcome back to EconTalk.
Adam，欢迎回到 EconTalk。
Adam Kirsch: Thanks so much.
亚当·基尔希：非常感谢。
I'm really glad to be back with you.
我真的很高兴能回到你们身边。
Russ Roberts: Now I have to confess, I wasn't interested in the topic of this book, so if you're listening, don't hang up.
拉斯·罗伯茨：现在我必须承认，我对这本书的主题不感兴趣，所以如果你正在听，请不要挂断电话。
Don't switch off because it doesn't excite you.
不要关掉它，因为它不会让你兴奋。
I think this will be a very interesting conversation.
我认为这将是一次非常有趣的对话。
It's a lovely book.
这是一本可爱的书。
It's full of things I didn't know.
里面充满了我不知道的事情。
And, it's also very provocative.
而且，这也非常具有挑衅性。
So, I'm excited about our conversation.
所以，我对我们的谈话感到很兴奋。
Despite the topic of the book, my faith in the author was rewarded.
尽管这本书的主题如此，但我对作者的信心得到了回报。
Now, the first part of the book is about the--and it's very short, by the way, listeners, it's 130 short pages--the first part of the book is about the change in the public conversation about aliens.
现在，这本书的第一部分是关于——顺便说一句，听众们，它很短，只有 130 页——这本书的第一部分是关于关于外星人的公众对话的变化。
And, by aliens, we're talking about would-be visitors from outer space.
说到外星人，我们谈论的是来自外太空的潜在访客。
It's a hard phrase to actually explain.
这是一个很难解释的短语。
Sentient, non-humans from a different place.
来自不同地方的有感知能力的非人类。
Now, Adam, I missed this.
现在，亚当，我错过了这一点。
And my first reaction is, what the heck?
我的第一反应是，到底是什么？
What is going on?
到底是怎么回事？
Adam Kirsch: Well, your reaction is a common one.
Adam Kirsch：嗯，你的反应很常见。
In fact, I say in the introduction to the book that while I was writing this book, when I told people I'm writing a book about aliens and UFOs [unidentied flying objects], a lot of people were, like, 'Okay, check please.
事实上，我在书的简介中说，当我写这本书时，当我告诉人们我正在写一本关于外星人和不明飞行物（不明飞行物）的书时，很多人都说，‘好吧，请检查一下。
I don't want to talk about this.
我不想谈论这个。
I don't want to hear about this.'
我不想听这个。
And, just to be clear, I'm not saying that there have been aliens or UFOs on Earth.
而且，需要澄清的是，我并不是说地球上曾经存在过外星人或不明飞行物。
In fact, I'm quite sure that there haven't been.
事实上，我很确定没有。
But, as you say, the thing that made me want to write about this was that in 2017, there was a really significant shift in the way that this subject is covered and talked about in the media.
但是，正如你所说，让我想写这篇文章的是，2017 年，媒体报道和谈论这个主题的方式发生了真正重大的转变。
And, it can be pinpointed pretty closely.
而且，它可以非常精确地定位。
So, in December 2017, the New York Times and the Washington Post both published front page stories about the so-called Pentagon UFO videos.
因此，2017年12月，《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》都在头版刊登了有关所谓五角大楼UFO视频的报道。
And, these were videos that had circulated online in a sort of leaked or rumored clandestine fashion, but now were being officially reported that they were videos taken by Navy fighter planes showing strange things in the air, hovering orbs.
而且，这些视频以某种泄露或传闻的秘密方式在网上流传，但现在官方报道称，它们是海军战斗机拍摄的视频，显示空中有奇怪的东西，悬停的球体。
One thing that was described was looking like a Tic Tac.
所描述的一件事是看起来像 Tic Tac。
And, they moved, and they looked like things that weren't conventional aircraft.
而且，它们会移动，而且看起来不像传统飞机。
And, what was significant about these videos was that the Pentagon historically had a policy of denying that it took any notice of UFO reports.
而且，这些视频的重要意义在于，五角大楼历史上有一项政策，否认它注意到任何 UFO 报告。
So, going back to the 1960s, the official Pentagon stance was: 'There are no UFOs.
因此，回到 20 世纪 60 年代，五角大楼的官方立场是：“不存在不明飞行物。”
None of our people have seen UFOs, and this is not a subject that we pay any attention to.' And now it turned out that, in fact, there were these videos.
我们的人民没有人见过不明飞行物，这不是我们关注的话题。”现在事实证明，这些视频确实存在。
People within the military had seen things like this: there had been reports of them.
军队内部的人都见过这样的事情：有过这样的报道。
And, that fed into this idea, which has always been important for the UFO-believer community, that the government is hiding things that it knows.
而且，这也催生了这样一个想法，即政府正在隐瞒它所知道的事情，这对 UFO 信徒群体来说一直很重要。
At the same time, these reports showed that there had been a Defense Department program called AATIP [Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program], which was a short-lived five-year program that had a budget of $22 million to collect and analyze reports of UFOs by military personnel.
与此同时，这些报告显示，国防部曾有一个名为AATIP（高级航空航天威胁识别计划）的计划，这是一个为期五年的短期计划，预算为2200万美元，用于收集和分析军事人员有关UFO的报告。
And, again, that was something that the Pentagon had always officially denied, said did not exist.
而且，五角大楼一直官方否认这一点，称其不存在。
And then it turned out that there was this small program, more or less buried in the enormous bureaucracy of the Pentagon, with a few people working on it.
然后事实证明，有一个小计划，或多或少地埋藏在五角大楼庞大的官僚机构中，只有几个人在研究它。
So, these two things were reported for the first time in December 2017.
因此，这两件事在 2017 年 12 月首次被报道。
And, it really changed the way that mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post, and then others, talked about this story.
而且，它确实改变了《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》等主流媒体以及其他媒体谈论这个故事的方式。
Because before then, I think anyone who talked about UFO sightings, the presumption was that they were a crank or a hoax or something like that.
因为在那之前，我认为任何谈论 UFO 目击事件的人都会假设它们是怪人或骗局或类似的东西。
And, now, for the first time, it seemed like: Well, maybe there is a story here.
现在，第一次，这似乎是：嗯，也许这里有一个故事。
Maybe there's something that we could get to the bottom to and report.
也许有什么我们可以查清楚并报告的事情。
Maybe there's more to this than meets the eye.
也许这背后的意义远不止表面所看到的。
And, I think that that change, which I saw happening as a journalist working at the time at the Wall Street Journal and seeing how other publications were covering this story, was really interesting to me because, after all, the idea that there might be UFOs is pretty interesting if it's true.
而且，我认为这种变化，我当时在《华尔街日报》工作的记者看到发生的变化，以及其他出版物如何报道这个故事，对我来说真的很有趣，因为毕竟，如果这是真的，可能存在不明飞行物的想法是非常有趣的。
It's big if true, as people say.
正如人们所说，如果这是真的，那就很大了。
So, the book starts with that.
所以，这本书就以此开始。
That's the first chapter.
这是第一章。
But then, it goes on to talk in broader terms about why people are interested in UFOs, why people want to believe in them, and how it demonstrates some of the same dynamics that we've seen over the last 10 years going on in politics about other issues.
但随后，它继续从更广泛的角度讨论为什么人们对不明飞行物感兴趣，为什么人们想要相信它们，以及它如何展示了我们在过去十年中在政治上关于其他问题所看到的一些相同的动态。
And then it looks at the science of, well, what actually is the state of science about life outside of Earth?
然后它着眼于科学，那么，关于地球以外生命的科学现状到底是什么？
What do scientists think about it?
科学家对此有何看法？
What are they doing to find it?
他们正在做什么来找到它？
Russ Roberts: So, you talk--many, many books have been written about this, and you talk about this community of believers.
拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，你谈到了很多很多关于这一点的书，你谈到了这个信徒群体。
As is your wont, very respectfully.
按照你的习惯，非常恭敬。
But, fundamentally, what it comes down to is, despite this surge of interest, despite this openness on the part of the government, say, to admit to certain things that have been going on, there's really no evidence.
但从根本上来说，归根结底是，尽管人们的兴趣激增，尽管政府方面持开放态度，比如说承认某些已经发生的事情，但确实没有证据。
None.
没有任何。
Not like weak evidence.
不像薄弱的证据。
All the evidence is what we would call--the fancy name would be testimonials.
所有的证据就是我们所说的——花哨的名字就是推荐。
The other name for it would be stories.
它的另一个名字是故事。
They're things that happen to a single person, a pilot, who could be credible in some dimension because he seems to lead a normal life.
这些事情发生在一个人身上，一个飞行员，他在某些方面可能是可信的，因为他似乎过着正常的生活。
Then there are other people who maybe are a little more troubled and who make claims about being sucked into spaceships and so on.
还有一些人可能会遇到更多的麻烦，他们声称自己被吸进了宇宙飞船等等。
Summarize the lack of evidence, just to be blunt about it.
总结缺乏证据，只是直言不讳。
Adam Kirsch: Sure.
亚当·基尔希：当然。
So, after this initial revelations, these revelations in 2017, there was a lot of interest in finding out, are there actually secret videos or artifacts or things that could be revealed or disclosed that would really clinch the case that there have been UFOs on Earth and that the government knows about it and has been hiding it?
因此，在最初的揭露之后，在 2017 年的这些揭露之后，人们很想知道，是否真的存在秘密视频、文物或可以被揭露或披露的东西，从而真正证明地球上曾经存在过不明飞行物，并且政府知道这一点并一直在隐藏它？
And, there have been a number of people--not a number, but let's say about half a dozen people--who, as you say, are credentialed, who have histories working for the Defense Department or the State Department--
而且，有很多人——不是人数，而是大约六人——正如你所说，他们是有资格的，有为国防部或国务院工作的历史——
Adam Kirsch: military officers, who have made these claims pretty vocally, including in 2023 in front of Congress.
Adam Kirsch：军官们，他们非常直言不讳地提出了这些主张，包括 2023 年在国会面前。
There was a House hearing in which three people who were military pilots testified about things that they had seen.
众议院举行了一次听证会，三名军事飞行员就他们所看到的事情作证。
And so, there have been people promoting the idea that military pilots have encountered UFOs or, more provocatively, that the government has alien spacecraft in a warehouse somewhere or even corpses of aliens that have been retrieved from crash sites.
因此，有人宣扬军事飞行员遇到过不明飞行物，或者更具挑衅性的是，政府在某处的仓库里有外星飞船，甚至从坠机地点打捞出外星人的尸体。
And, there have been people who have said, quite seriously, 'I know that this is true, but I can't tell you exactly where they are.' Or, 'Someone who I know knows, but they won't tell me exactly where they are.' So, there's always one step removed of, 'I can't actually point it out to you myself, but trust me because I'm sure that this exists.'
而且，有人非常严肃地说，“我知道这是真的，但我无法告诉你他们到底在哪里。”或者，“我认识的人知道，但他们不会告诉我他们到底在哪里。”因此，总会有一个步骤被删除，“我实际上无法亲自向您指出这一点，但请相信我，因为我确信它存在。”
And, so, when it comes down to it, there is no evidence.
所以，归根结底，没有证据。
And, in fact, I saw a discussion about this on social media--where a lot of this discussion takes place--where someone was quoting something that I had written in this book about how there's still no evidence.
事实上，我在社交媒体上看到了有关此问题的讨论 - 在那里发生了很多这样的讨论 - 有人引用了我在本书中写的关于如何仍然没有证据的内容。
And, someone said, 'That's not true.
而且，有人说，‘那不是真的。
There might not be proof , but there is evidence .'
可能没有证据，但有证据。”
So, to me, what that gets to is one of the main things I write about in the book, which is: What does it mean for there to be evidence of something?
所以，对我来说，这就是我在书中写的主要内容之一，即：存在某物的证据意味着什么？
What's the difference between evidence and testimony?
证据和证词有什么区别？
And, to get into the sort of deeper questions of: What does it mean to think scientifically about the world?
并且，要深入探讨以下问题：科学地思考世界意味着什么？
How do we evaluate scientific claims?
我们如何评估科学主张？
Especially for someone like me who is not a scientist.
尤其是对于像我这样不是科学家的人来说。
I'm a humanist, if anything, with--my interests are in literature and religion.
如果有的话，我是一个人文主义者，我的兴趣是文学和宗教。
And so, I am not an astronomer or anything like that.
所以，我不是天文学家或类似的人。
So, putting myself in the position of someone who, like most of us, is hearing scientific claims, how do we think about these claims?
那么，把我自己置于像我们大多数人一样听到科学主张的人的位置上，我们如何看待这些主张呢？
How do we evaluate them, not being experts?
如果不是专家，我们如何评价他们？
And I think that that's an important question that we have to deal with in lots of ways in a democracy.
我认为这是一个重要的问题，我们必须在民主国家以多种方式处理。
Most recent example might be public health.
最近的例子可能是公共卫生。
There are a lot of public health claims where people who are scientists and experts say one thing, and then there's a large number of lay people who disagree with them or won't listen to them and believe something else is true.
有很多公共卫生主张，其中科学家和专家说的是一件事，然后有大量的外行人不同意他们的观点或不听他们的观点并相信其他的东西是正确的。
And, how do you reconcile those two claims in a democracy where, on most issues, the majority rules?
而且，在大多数问题上由多数人决定的民主国家中，您如何调和这两种主张？
Russ Roberts: And, it's fascinating to me because there's been no time in human history where we have as much access to information as we have right now.
拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，这对我来说很着迷，因为在人类历史上，我们从来没有像现在这样能够获得如此多的信息。
It's really an exhilarating time for a curious person.
对于一个好奇的人来说，这确实是一个令人兴奋的时刻。
I've said this many times on the program.
这句话我在节目里说过很多次了。
And yet, there is this nagging suspicion that many of us have that even though information is plentiful, very few people are well-informed.
然而，我们中的许多人都有这样一个挥之不去的怀疑：尽管信息充足，但消息灵通的人却很少。
And, the willingness of so many people to believe in conspiracies, to believe in something because the experts believe the opposite and they must be being exploited--the citizen is--it seems like a crazy thing to say, but certain medieval level of knowledge and misinformation, disinformation.
而且，这么多人愿意相信阴谋，相信某些东西，因为专家相信相反的观点，他们一定被剥削了——公民就是——这似乎是一件疯狂的事情，但一定是中世纪的知识水平和错误信息、虚假信息。
Something akin to witch hunts and demons in medieval times.
类似于中世纪的猎巫和恶魔。
It's just kind of extraordinary.
这有点非同寻常。
And in this particular case, if we really were being visited by alien beings, you'd think there'd be quite a bit of--first of all, it would be really hard to cover it up.
在这个特殊情况下，如果我们真的被外星人造访，你会认为会有很多——首先，很难掩盖它。
The second thing is, it wouldn't be like, 'I saw something.
第二件事是，它不会是，‘我看到了一些东西’。
I wasn't sure what it was.' And, that seems to be the main evidence.
我不确定那是什么。而且，这似乎是主要证据。
It's not like there were a group of people, say, at a 7-Eleven, and a person with four heads came in and spoke in a language no one understood, and they were all swept up into the spaceship together, and they gave them a piece of metal that isn't available on Earth.
又不是有一群人，比如说，在7-11，一个长着四个脑袋的人进来，用一种没人理解的语言说话，然后他们一起被卷进宇宙飞船，他们给了他们一块地球上没有的金属。
I mean, these are the things that we would normally call evidence.
我的意思是，这些就是我们通常所说的证据。
And, there's nothing.
而且，什么也没有。
It's just not a plausible hypothesis on the surface.
从表面上看，这不是一个合理的假设。
Adam Kirsch: It's not plausible for a couple of reasons.
Adam Kirsch：这不合理，有几个原因。
One is, just looking at the question of images, there are billions and billions of people all the time with a camera in their hand, walking around all over Earth with cameras in their hands, and no one has ever taken a picture of what's really clearly an alien or an alien spaceship.
一是，单看图像问题，有数十亿人一直手里拿着相机，拿着相机在地球上走来走去，却没有人拍过一张真正清晰的外星人或外星飞船的照片。
Whenever these images are proposed, it's always something that's an infrared radar image that looks like a blurry circle or a light in the sky, something like that.
每当提出这些图像时，它总是红外雷达图像，看起来像一个模糊的圆圈或天空中的一道光，类似的东西。
There's never a clear image of anything to look at.
从来没有任何东西可以看的清晰图像。
And in fact, that's always been true.
事实上，这一直都是事实。
And, one thing I quote in the book is that in the 1950s, Carl Jung, the psychologist, wrote a book about UFO sightings in the 1950s where he talked about, well, what's really going on when people say that they're seeing UFOs?
而且，我在书中引用的一件事是，在 20 世纪 50 年代，心理学家卡尔·荣格（Carl Jung）写了一本关于 20 世纪 50 年代 UFO 目击事件的书，他在书中谈到，好吧，当人们说他们看到 UFO 时到底发生了什么？
And, he said, 'One thing about UFOs is that they're not photogenic.' Meaning that even people who say, 'I've seen a UFO,' can never actually seem to take a picture of one.
而且，他说，“关于不明飞行物的一件事是它们不上镜。”这意味着即使人们说“我见过不明飞行物”，但似乎也永远无法真正拍摄到不明飞行物的照片。
He talks about a friend of his who was, like, 'I saw a UFO.
他谈到他的一个朋友，他说，“我看到了一个不明飞行物。”
It was in the sky above my head for an hour.' And, Jung says, 'Well, then why didn't you take a picture of it?' And he says, 'Well, I just forgot.
它在我头顶的天空中停留了一个小时。”荣格说：“那么你为什么不给它拍张照片呢？”他说，‘好吧，我只是忘了。
I was so absorbed with it, I didn't even think--occur to me to take my camera out and take a picture.' That kind of thing.
我全神贯注于它，我什至没有想到要拿出相机拍照。”那种事。
So, there's always a reason why an actual image is never produced.
因此，始终无法生成实际图像总是有原因的。
And then, the other kinds of evidence that you might expect if there was an alien spacecraft would be something that would show up on a space telescope or a radar facility or a radio astronomy observatory.
然后，你可能期望是否存在外星飞船的其他类型的证据将出现在太空望远镜、雷达设施或射电天文观测台上。
There are lots of people who study space and the atmosphere who are monitoring it all the time and who'd be able to tell us if something came to our planet from somewhere else.
有很多研究太空和大气层的人一直在监测它，他们能够告诉我们是否有东西从其他地方来到我们的星球。
And, certainly nothing like an artifact--like: Here's something you can hold in your hands.
而且，当然没有什么比人工制品更重要的了——比如：这是你可以握在手中的东西。
You can analyze, for example, the isotopes in it and say, well, this is a metal that isn't found on Earth or something like that.
例如，你可以分析其中的同位素，然后说，这是一种在地球上找不到的金属或类似的东西。
Those are all the kinds of things that you would expect if we were talking about normal scientific evidence.
如果我们谈论正常的科学证据，这些都是你所期望的。
And so, there's a famous phrase on this subject that Carl Sagan said, because Carl Sagan--who was a real astronomer, who was very interested in the idea of extraterrestrial life and wrote about it and thought about it--said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' So, if you're going to claim that something as extraordinary as a UFO or an alien has come to Earth, then you have to have some piece of extraordinary evidence to back up that claim.
因此，卡尔·萨根在这个问题上说过一句著名的话，因为卡尔·萨根——他是一位真正的天文学家，对外星生命的想法非常感兴趣，并写下了它并思考过它——他说，“非凡的主张需要非凡的证据。”因此，如果你要声称像不明飞行物或外星人这样非同寻常的东西已经来到地球，那么你必须有一些非同寻常的证据来支持这一说法。
And, that's something that has never been produced.
而且，那是从未生产过的东西。
So, I think the obvious answer is: This evidence doesn't exist because these things haven't happened.
所以，我认为显而易见的答案是：这个证据不存在，因为这些事情还没有发生。
And, this is the reason why I found this an interesting subject.
而且，这就是为什么我发现这是一个有趣的主题的原因。
Because, that in and of itself is not that interesting of a statement.
因为，这本身并不是一个有趣的陈述。
It's like, yes, that is the obvious thing to say.
就好像，是的，这是显而易见的事情。
The real interesting part is, 'Well, why do people believe things for which there's no evidence?' And, that's a question that you can ask about UFOs.
真正有趣的部分是，“那么，为什么人们会相信没有证据的事情呢？”而且，这是一个关于不明飞行物的问题。
You could also ask it about God or the Bible or religion or a whole lot of other things that a lot more people believe in and take a lot more seriously than UFOs.
你也可以询问有关上帝、圣经、宗教或许多其他事物的问题，这些事物比不明飞行物有更多的人相信并且更认真地对待。
So, if you say, 'I had an experience of communion with God,' or, 'I saw an angel,' or something like that, those are the kinds of things that religions are built on.
所以，如果你说，“我有过与上帝交流的经历”，或者“我看到了天使”，或者类似的话，这些就是宗教建立的基础。
But for that, too, there's never any evidence.
但对此也没有任何证据。
There's never a photograph.
从来没有一张照片。
There's never an artifact.
从来没有一件神器。
So, one question that this leads to is: Well, how do you distinguish between different kinds of claims for which there are no evidence?
因此，这导致的一个问题是：那么，如何区分没有证据的不同类型的主张？
When presented by someone with a claim: 'Something happened to me.' For example, some of these people, as you mentioned, say, 'I was taken aboard a UFO, and I saw an alien,' or, 'An alien performed an experiment on me.' That is a claim for which there's no evidence.
当有人提出这样的说法时：“我发生了什么事。”例如，正如您提到的，其中一些人说，“我被带上了不明飞行物，我看到了一个外星人”，或者“一个外星人对我进行了实验。”这是一个没有证据支持的说法。
Another kind of claim for which there's no evidence is, 'I saw the face of God,' or, 'God spoke to me.' How do you evaluate these kinds of claims?
另一种没有证据的说法是“我看到了上帝的面孔”，或者“上帝对我说话了”。您如何评价此类主张？
What do you do when someone brings a claim into the public sphere like that that can't be rationally discussed because it can't be falsified?
当有人将一种无法被证伪而无法理性讨论的主张带入公共领域时，你会怎么做？
There's no way to prove that it's wrong.
没有办法证明它是错的。
What kind of authority does that kind of claim have, if you say to people, 'Well, all the scientists say there's no UFOs, but I know , because it happened to me, that there is a UFO'?
如果你对人们说，“好吧，所有科学家都说不存在不明飞行物，但我知道，因为它发生在我身上，所以存在不明飞行物”，这种说法有什么权威呢？
How do you respond to that?
你对此有何回应？
How can you say to that person, 'Well, you are wrong about what happened to you.
你怎么能对那个人说：‘好吧，你对发生在你身上的事情的看法是错误的。
What you think happened to you didn't happen'?
你认为发生在你身上的事情没有发生？
Those are all questions that go beyond the issue of just UFOs, which ultimately, I think, still are in the category of: no one really believes it except people who are quite, quite convinced.
这些问题都超出了不明飞行物的范围，我认为最终仍然属于这样的范畴：除了非常非常确信的人之外，没有人真正相信它。
And then, the sort of further question is: Well, if there aren't any UFOs, why aren't there?
然后，进一步的问题是：好吧，如果没有任何不明飞行物，为什么不存在？
Because, that raises a whole other set of cosmological questions, which I get into in the second half of the book, which is--
因为，这提出了另一组宇宙学问题，我在本书的后半部分讨论了这些问题，那就是——
Russ Roberts: We'll talk about it.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我们会讨论这个问题。
We'll talk about that in a minute.
我们稍后会讨论这个问题。
Russ Roberts: I want to stick with what you just said.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我想坚持你刚才所说的。
First, a couple of footnotes.
首先，有几个脚注。
You said it's something that looked like a Tic Tac.
你说这是一种看起来像 Tic Tac 的东西。
You mean the breath mint?
你说的是口气薄荷吗？
Adam Kirsch: Yes, the breath mint.
Adam Kirsch：是的，薄荷味。
So, this is something that--
所以，这是——
Russ Roberts: Meaning that it's not aerodynamically shaped like most things that take flight in our atmosphere?
拉斯·罗伯茨：意思是说它的空气动力学形状不像大多数在我们大气层中飞行的物体那样？
Adam Kirsch: Yeah, you can think of it as a little oval or tube with rounded edges, with no wings and no visible engines.
Adam Kirsch：是的，你可以把它想象成一个小椭圆形或带有圆形边缘的管子，没有机翼，也没有可见的发动机。
So, if you see something like that and it's zooming across the sky, it doesn't seem to make sense as a human-made aeronautical device.
所以，如果你看到类似的东西并且它在天空中快速移动，那么它作为人造航空装置似乎没有意义。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
And then, you also said--you've used UFO to mean flying saucer, but of course, technically, UFO means an unidentified flying object, which could include--would include--things that are just visual illusions explicable through it's a balloon or some atmospheric event or a drone or some other things, right?
然后，你还说，你用 UFO 来表示飞碟，但当然，从技术上讲，UFO 是指不明飞行物，其中可能包括——可能包括——只是视觉错觉的东西，可以通过气球或某些大气事件或无人机或其他东西来解释，对吗？
Russ Roberts: But, it's come to mean aliens in a spaceship, a UFO.
拉斯·罗伯茨：但是，它现在指的是宇宙飞船中的外星人，即不明飞行物。
Adam Kirsch: Yes.
亚当·基尔希：是的。
And, it's a good example of how language changes around this subject.
而且，这是围绕该主题语言如何变化的一个很好的例子。
So, now people don't say UFO anymore.
所以，现在人们不再说UFO了。
They say UAP.
他们说UAP。
UAP [Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon] is the new, approved acronym.
UAP [不明异常现象] 是新的、经批准的缩写词。
It's what the government uses, for example.
例如，这就是政府所使用的。
And, it's what people who discuss the subject usually say now.
而且，这就是现在讨论这个话题的人通常所说的。
And, that change happened about 10 years ago, around the same time as this surge of new reporting on the subject.
而且，这种变化发生在大约十年前，大约与有关该主题的新报道激增的同时。
And, UAP stands for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon.
而且，UAP 代表不明异常现象。
And, originally it stood for Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon; but then it was expanded from 'aerial' to 'anomalous' because some people said, 'Well, maybe these are things that aren't coming from the air, but they're coming from under the surface of the Earth or under the ocean or another time dimension--like, they're coming from the future.' So, anything that doesn't seem to make sense is a UAP.
而且，最初它代表不明空中现象；但后来它从“空中”扩展到“异常”，因为有些人说，“好吧，也许这些东西不是来自空气，而是来自地球表面下方或海洋下方或另一个时间维度——就像，它们来自未来。”所以，任何看起来没有意义的东西都是 UAP。
Essentially, it means the same thing as UFO.
本质上，它和UFO的意思是一样的。
And one thing I say in the book is that, as you say, 'UFO' now connotes a flying saucer and something we would think of as science fiction.
我在书中说的一件事是，正如你所说，“UFO”现在意味着飞碟和我们认为是科幻小说的东西。
But, in fact, 'Unidentified Flying Object' was created to be a term exactly like UAP.
但事实上，“不明飞行物”这个词的创建目的与UAP 完全相同。
It was supposed to be a neutral term.
它应该是一个中性术语。
It was supposed to sound neutral and scientific.
它应该听起来中立且科学。
And, it was invented by the Air Force in the early 1950s because people were talking about flying saucers.
而且，它是空军在 20 世纪 50 年代初发明的，当时人们正在谈论飞碟。
And they said, 'Well, no one takes 'flying saucers' seriously.
他们说，‘好吧，没有人认真对待‘飞碟’。
That sounds like it comes from a comic book.
这听起来像是来自漫画书。
Let's call it UFOs.
我们称之为不明飞行物。
That's a neutral, descriptive term.'
这是一个中性的描述性术语。
The problem is that the phenomenon itself is what's the problem, not the way we talk about it.
问题在于现象本身才是问题所在，而不是我们谈论它的方式。
So, it's what people sometimes call a euphemism treadmill, where the name keeps changing, but because there's a problem with the thing that's being named.
所以，这就是人们有时所说的委婉跑步机，名称不断变化，但因为所命名的东西存在问题。
So, you don't call it a flying saucer; you call it a UFO.
所以，你不称它为飞碟；而是称其为飞碟。你称它为不明飞行物。
You don't call it a UFO; you call it a UAP.
你不称它为UFO；它是UFO。你称之为UAP。
But, the problem is not what you call it: the problem is the thing you're talking about.
但是，问题不在于你所说的：问题在于你所谈论的事情。
Russ Roberts: I just want to say one thing about defense and believing in God.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我只想说一件事，关于防御和信仰上帝。
Believing in God, I agree, does not have the scientific evidence behind it that we would use to, I don't know, show that the dinosaurs were killed by a comet and not by something else--a meteor landing, a large meteor making an impact with the Earth and darkening the atmosphere for a long time.
我同意，信仰上帝并没有科学证据支持，我不知道，我们会用这些科学证据来证明恐龙是被彗星杀死的，而不是其他什么东西——流星着陆，一颗大流星撞击地球，使大气层长时间变暗。
But, people who believe in God, I would just make a distinction between people who think God has spoken to them--which is unverifiable, and even with recording--and people who have intellectual reasons for believing in God.
但是，对于那些相信上帝的人，我只想区分那些认为上帝对他们说话的人（这是无法证实的，甚至有记录）和那些有理智理由相信上帝的人。
Russ Roberts: I just want to make a small vote that belief in God is not the same level of, 'An angel picked me up and did X, Y, Z to me.' That's all.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我只是想投个小小的票，相信对上帝的信仰并不等同于“一个天使把我抱起来，并对我做了 X、Y、Z”。就这样。
Adam Kirsch: That's definitely true.
亚当·基尔希：这绝对是真的。
That's a good thing to emphasize.
强调这一点是件好事。
And, there's actually, I think, two important distinctions.
而且，我认为实际上有两个重要的区别。
One is, people mean a lot of different things when they say believing in God.
一是，当人们说“相信上帝”时，他们的意思有很多不同。
They mean a lot of different things by God.
上帝对它们有很多不同的含义。
Not just in the sense of different religions, but different ways of thinking about that religion.
不仅是在不同宗教的意义上，而且是对宗教的不同思考方式。
The way that Rambam believes in God is very different from the way that the Baba [?Türedi?] might experience God.
兰巴姆相信上帝的方式与巴巴 [？Türedi？] 体验上帝的方式非常不同。
They're all talking about the same God, but they mean different things by it.
他们都在谈论同一个上帝，但他们的意思却不同。
So, that's one thing.
所以，这是一回事。
But then, another thing is that the reason why UFOs or UAPs are interesting is that, if they exist, they're not supernatural.
但另一件事是，UFO 或 UAP 之所以有趣，是因为如果它们存在的话，它们并不是超自然的。
They're not something that are supposed to be miraculous, that you have to have faith to understand.
它们并不是什么神奇的东西，你必须有信心才能理解。
They are supposed to be physical objects that exist in the physical universe in three dimensions like everything else.
它们应该是像其他事物一样存在于物理宇宙的三维空间中的物理对象。
So, they are something that should be susceptible to empirical proof.
因此，它们应该容易受到经验证明的影响。
Which is--sort of by definition, religious faith is not supposed to be susceptible to empirical proof.
从定义上来说，宗教信仰不应该受到经验证据的影响。
And, that's why you say it's faith rather than evidence.
这就是为什么你说这是信仰而不是证据。
'Faith is the evidence of things not seen,' is what the New Testament says.
新约圣经说：“信心是未见之事的确据”。
So, UFOs are not supposed to be in that kind of category.
因此，不明飞行物不应该属于此类。
What I'm really talking about more is--and this is an example I use in the book--Lourdes is a Catholic holy site because in the 19th century there was a young girl named Bernadette who said that she saw the Virgin Mary.
我真正要说的更多的是——这是我在书中使用的一个例子——卢尔德是一个天主教圣地，因为在19世纪有一个名叫伯纳黛特的年轻女孩说她看到了圣母玛利亚。
The Virgin Mary appeared to her on a number of occasions and spoke to her.
圣母玛利亚多次出现在她面前并对她说话。
And, at first, the local priest in Lourdes in southern France didn't believe her and said, 'This is a girl making stuff up.' And then, as the word spread and more and more people heard about it, the Church changed its mind and said, 'We recognize that this is true.
起初，法国南部卢尔德当地的牧师并不相信她，并说：“这是一个女孩编造的东西。”然后，随着消息的传播，越来越多的人听说了这件事，教会改变了主意，并说：“我们认识到这是真的。”
We believe it happened.' And, Lourdes became an official pilgrimage site, and this became a recognized part of Catholic belief.
我们相信这件事发生了。并且，卢尔德成为官方朝圣地，这也成为天主教信仰的公认组成部分。
So, that's an example of how--that original claim is the same kind of claim as, 'I saw a flying saucer.
所以，这是一个例子，说明最初的主张与“我看到一个飞碟”是同一类型的主张。
I can't prove it, but I'm telling you this happened to me.' So, then, really, the question is, how do you get from, 'I'm telling you this happened to me,' to, 'You're a crank,' versus, 'You are a revered figure because we believe you'?
我无法证明这一点，但我告诉你这发生在我身上。那么，真正的问题是，你如何从“我告诉你这发生在我身上”转变为“你是个怪人”，而不是“你是一个受人尊敬的人物，因为我们相信你”？
Russ Roberts: I would say, it is evidence for that person, but not for me because I didn't experience it.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我想说，这是那个人的证据，但对我来说不是，因为我没有经历过。
And, certainly religious believers have, not necessarily hearing voices of God or angels, but have emotional, whatever we want to call the experiences of the divine that are evidence for their own personal set of beliefs.
而且，当然，宗教信徒不一定能听到上帝或天使的声音，但有情感，无论我们如何称呼神圣的经历，这些经历都是他们自己的个人信仰的证据。
But, I would make a distinction between that and, say, a claim of, say, mass revelation for the Jewish Bible or someone who, on the road to somewhere, sees something unique.
但是，我会将其与犹太圣经的大规模启示或在前往某个地方的路上看到独特事物的人的主张区分开来。
I think there's gradations of different kinds of what would convince a non-believer.
我认为有不同的层次可以说服非信徒。
Russ Roberts: But, coming back to aliens for a second.
拉斯·罗伯茨：但是，让我们回到外星人的话题上来。
You write the following.
你写下下面的内容。
You say:
你说：
Adam Kirsch: I would say yes.
亚当·基尔希：我会说是的。
And, I'd say yes, and that's why I got interested in this story when I first started to follow it and read about it.
而且，我会说是的，这就是为什么当我第一次开始关注和阅读这个故事时我对这个故事感兴趣。
And, over the course of reading about it, I'd say that I've become less of a want-to believer, or at least more reconciled to the idea that we will not see that in my lifetime or maybe ever.
而且，在阅读相关内容的过程中，我想说，我已经不再是一个愿意相信的人，或者至少更愿意接受这样的想法，即我们在有生之年或可能永远不会看到这种情况。
But, I'd say that the basic instinct of wanting to believe, yes.
但是，我想说的是，想要相信的基本本能，是的。
And, that's something that I think a lot of people share, both lay people and scientists, is: it would be truly amazing if we could find evidence that there's intelligent life not on Earth, in some other part of the cosmos.
而且，我认为很多人，无论是普通民众还是科学家，都认同这样的观点：如果我们能找到证据证明地球上、宇宙的其他地方不存在智慧生命，那就太神奇了。
It would change the way we think about the universe, about life, about intelligence, about ourselves, and our destiny.
它将改变我们对宇宙、生命、智慧、我们自己和命运的看法。
This is, again, something that Carl Sagan writes about in a pretty moving way.
卡尔·萨根再次以非常感人的方式描写了这一点。
So, I think that wanting to believe that is a very natural instinct and desire.
所以，我认为想要相信这是一种非常自然的本能和欲望。
And, the question is, what would justify that belief?
而且，问题是，什么可以证明这种信念的合理性？
What would we need to find to justify that belief?
我们需要找到什么来证明这种信念的合理性？
Russ Roberts: And, just one last thought on revelation and a feeling of something has happened to you personally that you cannot communicate.
拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，最后一个关于启示的想法和一种感觉，就是你个人发生了一些无法沟通的事情。
I always thought that one of the most magnificent--and I've spoken about this before--one of the most magnificent aspects of Close Encounters of the Third Kind , the Spielberg movie, is, I'm blanking on his name, Richard--
我一直认为，斯皮尔伯格电影《第三类接触》中最伟大的方面之一——我之前已经谈过这一点——最伟大的方面之一，是，我对他的名字理查德一无所知——
Russ Roberts: Richard Dreyfuss, thank you.
拉斯·罗伯茨：理查德·德莱福斯，谢谢你。
Richard Dreyfuss [?maybe here Russ intended the name of the character, Roy Neary?--Econlib Ed.] has been visited.
理查德·德莱福斯（Richard Dreyfuss）[？也许拉斯在这里指的是角色的名字，罗伊·尼尔里（Roy Neary）？——Econlib Ed.]已经被访问过。
There's been a revelation to him--only to him, and maybe some others--but no one else around him has experienced it.
他得到了一种启示——只有他自己，也许还有其他一些人——但他周围的其他人都没有经历过。
So, he, of course, becomes obsessed.
所以，他当然会变得痴迷。
And I love the scene where he has a vision in his head of the mountain he's supposed to find where the aliens are going to come visit him.
我喜欢这个场景，他的脑海里有一个幻象，他应该找到外星人会来拜访他的山。
And, his family suddenly stops in silence to see that he's shaped his mashed potatoes in the form of the mountain.
然后，他的家人突然安静地停下来，看到他把土豆泥做成了山的形状。
And, if you've had a religious revelation or you've had a experience with aliens that is meaningful to you, it would not be a small thing.
而且，如果你有过宗教启示，或者有过与外星人接触的经历，这对你来说很有意义，这将不是一件小事。
It would not be like, 'Oh yeah, by the way, did I mention--?' It would become an obsession.
它不会像，“哦，是的，顺便问一下，我有没有提到过——？”这将成为一种痴迷。
And the people you talk about--it's not a big part of the book--but the community of people who feel that this is true, obviously they feel very much like a oppressed minority: that they have not been given the credence that their personal experience demands.
你所谈论的人——这不是本书的重要部分——而是那些认为这是真的的人的社区，显然他们感觉自己非常像一个受压迫的少数派：他们没有得到他们个人经历所要求的信任。
Adam Kirsch: Yes.
亚当·基尔希：是的。
And, one of the things I talk about in the book is, there's a scholar who writes about the subject named D.
而且，我在书中谈到的一件事是，有一位名叫 D 的学者撰写了有关该主题的文章。
W.
W.
Pasulka, an American academic, Diana Pasulka, and she writes about something called a 'book experience.' The 'book experience' is: People who have had things that happened to them and they don't understand what they were, read a book about UFOs.
帕苏尔卡（Pasulka），美国学者戴安娜·帕苏尔卡（Diana Pasulka），她写了一篇叫做“书籍体验”的文章。 “书籍体验”是：那些经历过一些事情但不明白这些事情是什么的人，读一本关于不明飞行物的书。
And then, they understand that what happened to them was they saw a UFO.
然后，他们明白发生在他们身上的事情是他们看到了不明飞行物。
So, it's like: you have an experience that you can't interpret, and then the concept of UFOs and aliens allows you to interpret it.
所以，就像：你有一种你无法解释的经历，然后不明飞行物和外星人的概念允许你解释它。
It gives you the vocabulary to interpret it.
它为您提供了解释它的词汇。
Other people might find the vocabulary to interpret things that happened to them in religion or mysticism.
其他人可能会在宗教或神秘主义中找到词汇来解释发生在他们身上的事情。
These people say, 'Now I realize that what happened to me was I saw a UFO.
这些人说，‘现在我意识到发生在我身上的是我看到了不明飞行物。
I saw an alien.
我看到了一个外星人。
I was taken aboard a spaceship.' And, it gives you clarity.
我被带上了一艘宇宙飞船。而且，它让你更加清晰。
It gives you a way to make meaning out of your experiences, which is something that we all want and need.
它为您提供了一种让您的经历变得有意义的方法，这是我们都想要和需要的东西。
So, if someone incorporates that idea very deeply into their sense of self and into their worldview, but it's an idea that most people think is ridiculous, it puts them in a strange position where most people don't take them seriously or don't listen to them.
因此，如果有人将这个想法深深地融入到他们的自我意识和世界观中，但大多数人认为这是一个荒谬的想法，那么这会让他们处于一个奇怪的境地，大多数人不认真对待他们或不听他们的。
And, I think that that's why, for a lot of people who do believe in UFOs, the idea of disclosure is so important.
而且，我认为这就是为什么对于很多相信不明飞行物的人来说，披露的想法如此重要。
So, you mentioned Close Encounters .
所以，你提到了《近距离接触》。
The most recent Steven Spielberg movie, which is also about aliens, is called Disclosure Day .
史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格的最新电影也是关于外星人的，名为《披露日》。
It's not as good as Close Encounters , I don't think.
我认为它不如《近距离接触》那么好。
But, it's about the idea that the government has a bunch of evidence, like, video evidence of UFOs and aliens dating back to the 1940s.
但是，这是关于政府拥有大量证据的想法，比如可以追溯到 20 世纪 40 年代的 UFO 和外星人的视频证据。
And, a couple of brave whistleblowers are trying to leak these videos and get them out into public.
而且，一些勇敢的举报者正试图泄露这些视频并将其公之于众。
And, that's something that in the UFO world is called 'disclosure.' Disclosure is: The government is hiding these secrets; one day they will be disclosed, they'll be revealed, and everyone will see all along that the believers were right and the skeptics were wrong.
而且，这在 UFO 世界中被称为“披露”。披露内容是：政府正在隐藏这些秘密；有一天它们会被揭露，它们会被揭露，每个人都会一直看到信徒是对的，怀疑者是错的。
So, the idea that you want some evidence, some vindication, is a big part of, I think, what feeds this UFO discourse.
因此，我认为，想要一些证据、一些辩护的想法是 UFO 讨论的一个重要组成部分。
Russ Roberts: And, the last thing I'll say about this, and then we'll turn to the scientific community--which is, in a way, much more disturbing and fascinating than the layperson's beliefs in this.
拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，关于这个问题我要说的最后一件事是，然后我们将转向科学界——在某种程度上，这比外行人对此的信念更令人不安和迷人。
Again, I'm a religious person.
再说一次，我是一个有宗教信仰的人。
I have a lot of respect for religion.
我非常尊重宗教。
But, what strikes me in reading your summary, which is very artfully done--again, it's very respectful of the people who have had experiences like this--and despite the fact that there's no, quote, "real evidence," the persistence of that is just, for me, another brick in the wall of my view that human beings aren't so interested in the truth.
但是，读你的总结让我印象深刻，你的总结写得非常巧妙——再次，它非常尊重那些有过这样经历的人——尽管事实上没有，引用，“真正的证据”，但对我来说，这种坚持只是我观点中的另一块砖，即人类对真相并不那么感兴趣。
The truth won't set you free.
真相不会让你自由。
The truth is depressing a lot of the time, and it's more pleasant to think about other things.
很多时候事实是令人沮丧的，想想其他事情会更令人愉快。
Now, you confessed earlier that it would be amazing and extraordinary and world-changing if aliens visited humans or we could get direct evidence of some confirmable kind of their presence.
现在，你早些时候承认，如果外星人访问人类，或者我们能够获得某种可证实的外星人存在的直接证据，那将是令人惊奇、非凡和改变世界的。
But, you looked into it, you spent some time doing research for this book, and you have to confess that, well, the evidence isn't there.
但是，你调查了一下，你花了一些时间为这本书做研究，你必须承认，证据不存在。
Most people don't want to dig.
大多数人都不想挖。
And, I just think about this moment, coming back to what I said earlier about the extraordinary amount of information we have and yet how uninformed we are.
而且，我只是想到这一刻，回到我之前所说的，我们拥有大量的信息，但我们却是多么无知。
One of the reasons we're uninformed: it's really hard to know what information's reliable and what information is not.
我们不知情的原因之一是：很难知道哪些信息可靠，哪些信息不可靠。
In the old days, the gatekeepers were the experts of that information.
在过去，看门人是这些信息的专家。
They were sometimes reliable and often not.
他们有时可靠，但常常不可靠。
And, we've now come to this place where there are no really credible gatekeepers anymore.
而且，我们现在已经到了这个地步，不再有真正可信的看门人了。
I'm sure some people look to you.
我确信有些人会关注你。
Sometimes people--I'm embarrassed by it--but people look to me.
有时人们——我对此感到尴尬——但人们会看着我。
They trust me because they've heard me talk about things and they assume I'm a person of good faith in examining things.
他们信任我，因为他们听过我谈论事情，并且认为我是一个真诚地审视事物的人。
And, we're all flawed as human beings.
而且，作为人类，我们都有缺陷。
There's no reliable source that can be perfectly trusted because we're all human.
没有可以完全信任的可靠来源，因为我们都是人类。
And, I just think this moment is so extraordinary in that way.
而且，我只是认为这一刻是如此非凡。
Yes, there have been times in the past where we struggled--always--where we didn't know what was true and what was untrue.
是的，过去我们曾有过这样的挣扎——总是如此——我们不知道什么是真实的，什么是不真实的。
But, I feel that we've become unmoored in a certain way in 2026, where the amount of effort it takes to figure out--just to take a--you can pick almost any example in modern days.
但是，我觉得到 2026 年，我们在某种程度上已经失去了锚定，需要付出大量的努力才能弄清楚——只是举个例子——你几乎可以举出现代的任何例子。
I'll pick something that's not controversial: Whether Argentina behaved well or badly in the World Cup.
我会选择一些没有争议的事情：阿根廷在世界杯上表现得好还是坏。
Well, there's a whole bunch of people who want you to think they behaved badly.
嗯，有很多人希望你认为他们的行为很糟糕。
And then, there's a bunch of people who want to defend Argentina.
然后，有一群人想要保卫阿根廷。
And, as an outsider who is not deeply immersed in football, I'm sort of interested in it, but I don't really have any idea what's true.
而且，作为一个没有深入接触足球的局外人，我对它有点感兴趣，但我真的不知道什么是真实的。
And, that's true of so many things these days.
而且，现在很多事情都是如此。
And it's troubling.
这很令人不安。
Adam Kirsch: Yeah, that's definitely true.
Adam Kirsch：是的，这绝对是真的。
And, it's one of the reasons why I think it's not a coincidence that UFOs had this upsurge of interest at just the same moment as a lot of populist movements in politics, in economics--
而且，这就是为什么我认为不明飞行物与政治、经济领域的许多民粹主义运动同时出现的兴趣高涨并非巧合的原因之一——
Adam Kirsch: conspiracy theories about COVID [Coronavirus Disease] and populist politics.
Adam Kirsch：关于新冠病毒疾病和民粹主义政治的阴谋论。
I talk a little bit about Brexit because Brexit was an example where every economist, or 98% of economists, said, 'This is going to be very bad for us.
我谈了一些关于英国退欧的问题，因为英国退欧是一个例子，每个经济学家，或者说 98% 的经济学家，都会说，‘这对我们来说非常糟糕。
We shouldn't do this,' in Britain said, 'This is going to be bad for us to leave the European Union.
我们不应该这样做，”英国表示，“这对我们离开欧盟来说是不利的。
We shouldn't do it.' And, yet voters approved it anyway.
我们不应该这样做。但无论如何，选民还是批准了它。
They didn't believe or want to listen to, they didn't care about what the expert said.
他们不相信，也不想听，也不关心专家说的话。
They said, 'We want to do this.'
他们说：“我们想这么做。”
Similarly with COVID, experts said, 'Take this vaccine.
与新冠病毒类似，专家说，“接种这种疫苗”。
It'll stop you from getting COVID.' And, a surprising number of people said, 'I don't believe you.
它会阻止你感染新冠病毒。而且，数量惊人的人说：‘我不相信你。
I'm not going to take it.
我不会接受它。
I would rather take a horse de-worming medicine.
我宁愿吃马驱虫药。
Which is also a medicine.
这也是一种药物。
It's just that it's not the medicine you, the expert, told me to take.
只是这不是你这位专家告诉我吃的药。
It's a medicine that someone on social media told me to take.'
这是社交媒体上有人告诉我服用的药物。”
So, it seems to me that what's at the bottom of this is, who has the right to tell me what to do?
所以，在我看来，问题的根本在于，谁有权利告诉我该怎么做？
Who has the right to make up my mind for me?
谁有权利替我做决定？
And, I think that people don't like the idea that someone else is telling them what to do or telling them what they should think and not think.
而且，我认为人们不喜欢别人告诉他们该做什么，或者告诉他们应该想什么、不应该想什么。
And, just the very fact of being told, 'This is what you must think.
而且，正是被告知的事实，‘这就是你必须这么想的。
This is what you must do,' for a lot of us provokes a reaction: 'Well, I'm not going to do it just because you told me to do it.
这是你必须做的，”因为我们很多人都会做出这样的反应：“好吧，我不会仅仅因为你告诉我这样做就这样做。
I want to do what I want to do.
我想做我想做的事。
And, if that's something that you think is wrong, I don't care.'
而且，如果你认为这是错误的，我不在乎。
So, yes, I mean, there are still, I think, trustworthy gatekeepers about the news.
所以，是的，我的意思是，我认为仍然有值得信赖的新闻守门人。
It's just that, for example, like, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or--as a journalist, of course I would say that.
只是，例如，《纽约时报》或《华尔街日报》，或者——作为一名记者，我当然会这么说。
But, having worked in some of these places, I've seen from the inside and can say that people who work at these places really do take quite seriously the idea that they're telling the truth, that they're finding out what really happened.
但是，在这些地方工作过之后，我从内部看到并可以说，在这些地方工作的人确实非常认真地对待他们说的是实话，他们正在查明到底发生了什么。
People outside who don't trust the mainstream media have no faith in that.
不相信主流媒体的外界人士对此没有信心。
And they say, you're serving some agenda; you're trying to serve someone's interest.
他们说，你正在服务某些议程；你试图为某人的利益服务。
So, I think there are some, at least, gatekeepers out there.
所以，我认为至少有一些守门人。
The problem is people don't believe in gatekeeping or gatekeepers.
问题是人们不相信看门人或看门人。
And then, another problem is just the convenience of it.
然后，另一个问题就是它的便利性。
By far the most convenient way to find out what's going on in the world is, especially for young people, you open TikTok, scroll through it, and you'll find dozens of people giving you a little spiel about what's happening in the world.
到目前为止，了解世界上正在发生的事情最方便的方法是，尤其是对于年轻人来说，你打开 TikTok，滚动浏览它，你会发现有几十个人在向你讲述世界上正在发生的事情。
The problem is, those people don't necessarily know .
问题是，那些人不一定知道。
They could be completely ignorant.
他们可能完全无知。
They could be telling you lies out of some self-interested reason.
他们可能出于某种自利的原因对你撒谎。
So, if you don't have any standard for evaluating the claims that you're getting, it does create a pretty bad situation.
因此，如果您没有任何标准来评估您收到的索赔，那么情况确实会很糟糕。
I think people are uninformed about a lot of things that they ought to know better about, that it would be better if we all could agree, at least, on some guides to reality.
我认为人们对很多他们应该更好地了解的事情一无所知，如果我们都能够至少在一些现实指南上达成一致，那就更好了。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
I'll just finish this with an observation that when I think about the lessons that we should have learned, it's one thing to learn a lesson and then forget it.
我将通过一个观察来结束这篇文章，当我想到我们应该吸取的教训时，吸取教训然后忘记它是一回事。
That's very human.
这非常人性化。
And, it's very true of humanity writ large.
而且，这对于人类来说是非常真实的。
I've just become very aware of the fact that certain fads and trends just come back over and over and over again.
我刚刚意识到这样一个事实：某些时尚和趋势会一遍又一遍地回来。
Because, I interviewed Milton Friedman in 2006, and I actually made this claim that, because there was no demand for price controls at that time when gas prices had gone up a lot, that showed that economic education was effective.
因为，我在2006年采访了米尔顿·弗里德曼，我实际上说过这样的话，因为当时汽油价格上涨很多，没有价格管制的需求，这表明经济教育是有效的。
And he laughed at me and said, 'No, no, no. It's because there are a lot of people alive who were alive in the 1970s and remember how horrible they were.
他嘲笑我说：‘不，不，不。这是因为有很多人生活在 20 世纪 70 年代，还记得他们有多么可怕。
And, when they die off, there'll be a demand for price controls.' And, now we have a demand for rent control in New York City with great popularity and so on.
而且，当它们消失时，就会出现价格控制的需求。而且，现在我们在纽约市有租金管制的需求，很受欢迎等等。
The other example would be the Great Depression.
另一个例子是大萧条。
My father was born in 1930.
我的父亲出生于1930年。
He never bought a stock.
他从未买过股票。
He only bought bonds.
他只买了债券。
A terrible decision in my view.
在我看来，这是一个糟糕的决定。
But, it was impossible for him.
但是，这对他来说是不可能的。
Stocks were dangerous.
股票很危险。
His parents had been troubled, had challenges, his relatives, because of the crash in the stock market, and they talked about it all the time.
他的父母因为股市崩盘而陷入困境，遇到挑战，他的亲戚也一直在谈论这件事。
So, I get that.
所以，我明白了。
I get that we forget things.
我知道我们忘记了事情。
But, that we don't learn things to start with is a different level of failure.
但是，如果我们不从一开始就学习东西，那就是不同程度的失败。
So, if you said, what are the lessons of the financial crisis of 2008?
那么，如果你说，2008年金融危机的教训是什么？
Most people would pick whatever their ideological bent is and wave it around like a hammer.
大多数人都会选择他们的意识形态倾向，然后像锤子一样挥舞它。
If you ask people, what's our lesson from the COVID virus?
如果你问人们，我们从新冠病毒中得到了什么教训？
It's the same thing.
这是同样的事情。
Now, I do think that people who lived through COVID will be skeptical of the idea, say, of closing schools and keeping kids at home.
现在，我确实认为经历过新冠疫情的人们会对关闭学校、让孩子待在家里等想法持怀疑态度。
But, it very well could be the case that that's the wrong lesson to learn about the next virus--because it actually could be really bad for kids because this one was relatively safe for kids.
但是，很可能这是学习下一种病毒的错误教训，因为它实际上对孩子来说可能非常糟糕，因为这种病毒对孩子来说相对安全。
I just think it's fascinating to me how hard it is for us as a species to learn lessons and remember them.
我只是觉得让我着迷的是，作为一个物种，我们学习和记住教训是多么困难。
Adam Kirsch: Yeah; no, definitely.
亚当·基尔希：是的；不，绝对是。
And, part of the problem is maybe the distinction between facts and interpretations, or facts and how we respond to facts.
而且，部分问题可能在于事实与解释之间的区别，或者事实与我们如何应对事实之间的区别。
It's one thing to say, COVID, we shouldn't have closed schools or there shouldn't have been mask mandates, which I think at the time experts said we have to close schools, we have to have mask mandates.
说是一回事，新冠病毒，我们不应该关闭学校，也不应该有戴口罩的规定，我认为当时专家说我们必须关闭学校，我们必须有戴口罩的规定。
And now, in retrospect, I think there's a lot of evidence that we didn't need to do those things.
现在回想起来，我认为有很多证据表明我们不需要做这些事情。
But, the idea that COVID was caused by a certain coronavirus is a fact.
但是，新冠病毒是由某种冠状病毒引起的想法是事实。
So, distinguishing between facts and how you respond to facts--there's always going to be disagreements of opinions about actions and policies, but if people can't even agree on the basic facts of what happened, of reality, of existence, then you can't even have those discussions.
因此，区分事实和你对事实的反应——关于行动和政策的意见总是存在分歧，但如果人们甚至不能就发生的事情、现实、存在的基本事实达成一致，那么你甚至无法进行这些讨论。
And, one thing that I realized on a deeper level in thinking about the subject of UFOs is that most--I mean, I think of myself as a scientifically literate and rational person--but when I thought about, well, how do we know, how did people discover that the Earth rotates around the sun and not vice versa?
而且，在思考不明飞行物这个主题时，我更深层次地意识到的一件事是，大多数人——我的意思是，我认为自己是一个有科学素养和理性的人——但是当我想到，我们怎么知道，人们是如何发现地球绕着太阳旋转的，而不是反之亦然？
And, I started to look into, to read about, what did Copernicus, what did Galileo--in fact, it's an extremely complicated idea, and the proof of it is not at all clear.
而且，我开始研究、阅读有关哥白尼、伽利略做了什么的文章——事实上，这是一个极其复杂的想法，而且其证明根本不明确。
So, you have to really do a lot of thinking even to understand that level of scientific fact.
因此，即使要理解这种程度的科学事实，你也必须进行大量思考。
So, basically, when most of us say the Earth revolves around the sun, what we mean is we've always been taught the Earth revolves around the Sun, and we trust the people who taught us that.
所以，基本上，当我们大多数人说地球绕着太阳转时，我们的意思是我们一直被教导地球绕着太阳转，并且我们相信那些教导我们这一点的人。
So, if you don't trust the people who are teaching you things, then you have almost no basis for understanding reality.
所以，如果你不信任那些教你东西的人，那么你几乎没有理解现实的基础。
Russ Roberts: I would just say one thing about that, which is: Usually--it's a little more complicated than this--but usually the people who are telling you that the Earth goes around the Sun and not vice versa are not going to profit from misleading you.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我只想说一件事，那就是：通常情况比这更复杂一些，但通常那些告诉你地球绕着太阳转而不是反之亦然的人不会从误导你中获利。
So, you have a certain, perhaps naive, trust in them.
所以，你对他们有一定的、也许是天真的信任。
The reason it's a little naive is that, while they don't profit from it, they might have a worldview or, not an ideology, but a scientific framework that they've become accustomed to, that is part of their sense of self, their prestige in their profession.
之所以有点天真，是因为虽然他们没有从中获利，但他们可能有一种世界观，或者不是意识形态，而是他们已经习惯的科学框架，这是他们自我意识的一部分，是他们在职业中的声望。
So, it's just really hard.
所以，这真的很难。
Let's leave it at that.
我们就这样吧。
Adam Kirsch: Yeah.
亚当·基尔希：是的。
Well, to bring it back to UFOs.
好吧，把它带回不明飞行物。
One of the common things that UFO believers say is--one of the rhetorical strategies is--we are actually more scientific than the scientists.
不明飞行物信徒常说的一件事是——修辞策略之一是——我们实际上比科学家更科学。
Because, the definition of, they would say, of science is you keep an open mind and evaluate the evidence.
因为，他们会说，科学的定义是保持开放的心态并评估证据。
And, whenever we come to the scientists and say, 'I saw a UFO,' they won't listen to us at all.
而且，每当我们向科学家说“我看到了不明飞行物”时，他们根本不会听我们的。
They won't consider the evidence.
他们不会考虑证据。
So, by dismissing the evidence out of hand, by saying that couldn't possibly be a UFO, they're not being scientific.
因此，通过立即驳回证据，通过说这不可能是不明飞行物，他们是不科学的。
So, the anti-scientific people are the more scientific than the actual scientists.
所以，反科学的人比真正的科学家更科学。
And, I write about this in the book as to where that idea comes from.
而且，我在书中写到了这个想法的来源。
And, the idea of a paradigm shift: that everyone believes that the world operates one way until you get this anomaly.
并且，范式转变的想法：每个人都相信世界以一种方式运行，直到出现这种异常情况。
And, the anomaly shows that the existing framework has to be changed.
而且，这种异常现象表明现有框架必须改变。
There are a lot of people who would say, well, UFOs are a paradigm shift like that.
很多人会说，嗯，不明飞行物就是这样的范式转变。
We have to go beyond Western scientific rationalism and acknowledge that there are dimensions of reality that can't be explained that way.
我们必须超越西方科学理性主义，承认现实的某些维度是无法用这种方式解释的。
That's part of the appeal of it for a lot of people, is to say there are things that science doesn't know that we know better.
这就是它对很多人的吸引力的一部分，就是说有些事情科学不知道，但我们更了解。
Russ Roberts: Yeah, I would not go that far, personally.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，就我个人而言，我不会走那么远。
And yet, I have a certain respect for that viewpoint.
然而，我对这种观点有一定的尊重。
I think it's a rhetorical position to some extent.
我认为这在某种程度上是一种修辞立场。
But, the idea that we should be open-minded about it--obviously, again as a religious person, I've confronted so many people who just assume--they're not interested in hearing anything, talk to you about it at all, they just know you're a crank.
但是，我们应该对此保持开放的态度——显然，作为一个宗教人士，我遇到过很多人，他们只是假设——他们对听到任何事情都不感兴趣，根本不想和你谈论这件事，他们只是知道你是个怪人。
By definition, you're an irrational moron.
根据定义，你是一个非理性的白痴。
And, it's been--we don't have to go into the details--but the examples we've been talking about, COVID and the response to COVID, both the medical and the social response to it, a lot of people were pretty close-minded about it.
而且，我们不必讨论细节，但我们一直在谈论的例子，新冠病毒和对新冠病毒的反应，无论是医学上还是社会上的反应，很多人对此都持谨慎态度。
And, we found out later that they knew that, that they were protecting either themselves or their reputation or they wanted power.
而且，我们后来发现他们知道，他们要么是在保护自己或他们的声誉，要么就是想要权力。
Again, it's a complicated thing.
再说一遍，这是一件复杂的事情。
Russ Roberts: I want to go to the scientists because, in a way, as I said a minute ago, in a way it's more fascinating and disturbing that the scientific community has become more open.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我想去科学家那里，因为在某种程度上，正如我刚才所说，科学界变得更加开放，这更令人着迷，也更令人不安。
So, while they do not accept the person who, and perhaps are disrespectful of a person who has claimed to have been whisked into a spaceship and experimented on for a length of time, they have their own need, like the lay people we've been talking about, to believe that there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.
因此，虽然他们不接受那些声称自己被带进宇宙飞船并进行了很长一段时间实验的人，也许是不尊重，但他们有自己的需要，就像我们一直在谈论的外行人一样，相信宇宙中的其他地方存在智慧生命。
So, let's talk about that first.
那么，我们先来谈谈这一点。
Where does that come from?
这是从哪里来的？
Why do scientists--and when I say scientists, the most prominent one in your book is Avi Loeb, who is an astrophysicist at Harvard, those are two--that's about as good as you get.
为什么科学家——当我说科学家时，你书中最著名的一位是阿维·勒布，他是哈佛大学的一位天体物理学家，那是两个——这大约是你所能得到的最好的。
Astrophysicist at Harvard is not a small thing.
哈佛大学的天体物理学家可不是一件小事。
And yet, he wrote a book and talks about a UAP, an anomalous phenomenon, that he made the case for it coming from an intelligent source somewhere else.
然而，他写了一本书并谈论了 UAP，一种异常现象，他从其他地方的智能来源中证明了这种现象。
What's going on?
这是怎么回事？
First, talk about the philosophical questions we're dealing with.
首先，谈谈我们正在处理的哲学问题。
And, how is it possible that scientists have become evangelists, to pick a deliberately pointed word for this viewpoint?
而且，科学家怎么可能成为传播者，为这种观点选择一个刻意尖锐的词呢？
Adam Kirsch: Well, Avi Loeb is definitely an outlier, and I'll talk about him, but first I'll talk about the wider question.
Adam Kirsch：嗯，阿维·勒布（Avi Loeb）绝对是一个异类，我会谈论他，但首先我会谈论更广泛的问题。
So, until, say, the mid-20th century, the assumption of scientifically minded, free-thinking, progressive people in the West was: there must be intelligent life on other planets.
因此，直到二十世纪中叶，西方有科学头脑、思想自由、进步的人们的假设是：其他星球上一定存在智慧生命。
And, that was a deductive process, which is: the only reason to think that Earth is special is if you believe that God created Earth for special reasons.
而且，这是一个演绎过程，即：认为地球特殊的唯一原因是如果您相信上帝出于特殊原因创造了地球。
And, that's the traditional religious or biblical idea, that God created our planet to be the home of humanity, has a special interest in our planet.
而且，这是传统的宗教或圣经观念，即上帝创造我们的星球作为人类的家园，对我们的星球有着特殊的兴趣。
Starting with the scientific revolution, scientifically-minded people started to say, well, what Copernicus taught us is that Earth is just another planet.
从科学革命开始，有科学头脑的人们开始说，哥白尼教导我们的是，地球只是另一个行星。
Earth is not the center of the universe.
地球不是宇宙的中心。
It's one of many planets.
它是众多行星之一。
It's one of eight planets, we now say, revolving around the sun.
我们现在说，它是围绕太阳旋转的八颗行星之一。
And, so, if there's nothing special about Earth, there's no special reason why there should be life on Earth and nowhere else.
因此，如果地球没有什么特别的地方，那么就没有什么特殊的理由说明为什么地球上而不是其他地方应该有生命。
So, if you look at philosophers--
所以，如果你看看哲学家——
Adam Kirsch: And, don't forget Darwin.
Adam Kirsch：还有，别忘了达尔文。
So, if you look at philosophers and natural scientists in the 17th, 18th, 19th century, the sign of being a smart, progressive thinker was to say there are definitely intelligent life on other planets.
所以，如果你看看 17、18、19 世纪的哲学家和自然科学家，聪明、进步的思想家的标志就是说其他星球上肯定存在智慧生命。
Immanuel Kant said that.
伊曼努尔·康德说过这样的话。
He wrote about it.
他写了相关内容。
I talk about other philosophers who wrote about this in the Enlightenment.
我谈论的是在启蒙运动中写过这个问题的其他哲学家。
Alfred Russel Wallace, in the early 20th century, who was known as the rival to Darwin or the person who came up with the theory of evolution at the same time as Darwin, was one of the first people to say, 'Well, actually, maybe it's not that simple.
阿尔弗雷德·拉塞尔·华莱士（Alfred Russel Wallace）在20世纪初被称为达尔文的竞争对手或与达尔文同时提出进化论的人，他是最早说“嗯，实际上，也许事情没那么简单”的人之一。
Maybe we could have a scientific universe, and still there might only be life on Earth.'
也许我们可以拥有一个科学的宇宙，但仍然可能只有地球上有生命。”
But, most people would say, by the logic of Copernicanism or perspectivism, there's nothing special about Earth.
但是，大多数人会说，根据哥白尼主义或透视主义的逻辑，地球没有什么特别的。
There's no reason why life can only be on Earth.
没有理由说生命只能存在于地球上。
And, if we could only see other planets, we would find people like us or intelligent beings like us on other planets.
而且，如果我们只能看到其他星球，我们就会在其他星球上找到像我们这样的人或像我们这样的智慧生物。
That was sort of, like, a common idea.
这是一种常见的想法。
And so, in the mid-20th century, when it became possible for the first time to actually observe other planets using radio astronomy and then space probes and spacecraft and deep-space observatories, and we found that, in fact, there isn't intelligent life on any of the planets in our solar system.
因此，在 20 世纪中叶，当人们首次能够利用射电天文学以及太空探测器、航天器和深空天文台实际观察其他行星时，我们发现，事实上，太阳系中的任何行星上都不存在智慧生命。
And, as far as we can tell, we have never found evidence of intelligent life outside of our solar system either, or even of any kind of life yet.
而且，据我们所知，我们也从未在太阳系之外发现过智慧生命的证据，甚至还没有发现过任何生命形式的证据。
That upset the standard scientific worldview, which was: there's nothing special about life on Earth.
这颠覆了标准的科学世界观，即：地球上的生命没有什么特别的。
So, now it turns out that, as far as we know in the year 2026, it actually--there is something special about life on Earth, which is that there's no life anywhere else that we know of.
所以，现在事实证明，据我们所知，到 2026 年，地球上的生命实际上有一些特别之处，那就是我们所知道的其他地方没有生命。
We have yet to find evidence of life anywhere else.
我们尚未在其他地方找到生命存在的证据。
So, what I say in the book is that for lay people, the problem is that UFOs have been seen.
所以，我在书中所说的是，对于外行人来说，问题是UFO已经被看见了。
And, for scientists, the problem is that UFOs haven't been seen.
而且，对于科学家来说，问题是还没有看到不明飞行物。
Because, there's no real reason to explain why that is.
因为，没有真正的理由来解释为什么会这样。
So, what I talk about in the second half of the book is the scientific attempt to understand: Why is intelligent life seemingly much more rare than we once thought that it was?
所以，我在本书的后半部分谈论的是科学尝试去理解：为什么智慧生命似乎比我们曾经想象的要稀有得多？
And Avi Loeb, who became prominent--and maybe among scientists notorious--for saying that some of the things that have come into our solar system from outside of our solar system might be technological--that they're not just rocks, but they might be--his example is a light sail, a sail from an alien spacecraft designed to capture the force of light to propel it.
还有阿维·勒布（Avi Loeb），他因说从太阳系外部进入我们太阳系的一些东西可能是技术性的——它们不仅仅是岩石，但它们可能是——而成为著名的——也许在科学家中也是臭名昭著的——他的例子是光帆，来自外星飞船的帆，旨在捕获光的力量来推动它。
Even Avi Loeb doesn't say that's definitely what this is.
甚至阿维·勒布 (Avi Loeb) 也没有明确表示这就是事实。
What he says is--so to go back to the parallel to religion, there's a famous idea known as Pascal's wager.
他所说的是——回到与宗教的相似之处，有一个著名的想法，称为帕斯卡赌注。
The Christian thinker Pascal said, 'We should believe in God just on the logic of a bet, because if God exists and you believe in him, you win eternal life.
基督教思想家帕斯卡说：“我们应该仅仅根据打赌的逻辑来相信上帝，因为如果上帝存在并且你相信他，你就赢得了永生。”
And if he doesn't exist and you believe in him, you haven't really lost anything.' So, just on calculating what's of benefit to you, what are the best odds, you should believe in God.
如果他不存在而你相信他，那么你并没有真正失去任何东西。所以，只要计算一下什么对你有利，什么是最好的机会，你就应该相信上帝。
Avi Loeb says, drawing a direct comparison, there was this thing that came into our solar system called ?Oumuamua, which was the first object that was ever confirmed to come from outside of our solar system.
阿维·勒布说，通过直接比较，有一个进入我们太阳系的东西叫做“Oumuamua”，它是第一个被确认来自太阳系之外的物体。
It was the first thing that scientists said, based on its orbit and trajectory, we know this thing is not orbiting the Sun; it must have come from somewhere else.
这是科学家说的第一件事，根据它的轨道和轨迹，我们知道这个东西不是绕太阳运行；而是绕太阳运行。它一定是从其他地方来的。
He says: We should make ?Oumuamua's wager.
他说：我们应该下？Oumuamua 的赌注。
We should say, even if this thing isn't alien technology, we should act as if it is alien technology because then we'll take seriously the idea of aliens.
我们应该说，即使这个东西不是外星技术，我们也应该表现得像外星技术一样，因为这样我们才会认真对待外星人的想法。
We will develop tools to detect aliens and alien technology so that the next time, if there really is alien technology, we'll be able to find it.
我们将开发检测外星人和外星技术的工具，这样下次如果真的有外星技术，我们就能找到它。
The thing about Avi Loeb that I think has made him suspicious to a lot of astronomers and other scientists is that he has since found, like, two or three more examples of this.
我认为关于阿维·勒布的事情让许多天文学家和其他科学家对他产生了怀疑，因为他此后又发现了两三个这样的例子。
And, he's starting to say that lots of things are alien technology or could be alien technology.
而且，他开始说很多东西都是外星技术，或者可能是外星技术。
Again, he never comes right down and says this is definitely an alien spaceship.
再说一次，他从来没有直接说这绝对是一艘外星飞船。
What he says is, well, this other interstellar object could also be alien technology or--
他说的是，这个另一个星际物体也可能是外星技术，或者——
Adam Kirsch: It's anomalous, right.
Adam Kirsch：这很反常，对吧。
Or that it have this other explanation.
或者它有其他的解释。
And, that annoys other scientists because, in fact, there isn't sufficient reason to say that.
而且，这让其他科学家感到恼火，因为事实上没有足够的理由这么说。
But, he wants to keep open this possibility.
但是，他想保留这种可能性。
He wants to allow us to keep thinking about it.
他想让我们继续思考这个问题。
Russ Roberts: And, just to come back to this question of this belief--this presumption--that there's life everywhere, by the way, not just there might be one other sentient creature in the universe.
拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，回到这个信念的问题——这个假设——顺便说一句，生命无处不在，而不仅仅是宇宙中可能存在另一种有感知的生物。
That it must be frequent .
那一定是经常的。
You know, it's the Law of Large Numbers.
你知道，这就是大数定律。
There's 1-with-22-zeros after it, roughly, stars.
后面有 1 和 22 个零，大致是星星。
Many of them will have planets around them.
他们中的许多人周围都有行星。
So, the denominator is very large.
所以，分母非常大。
And, presumably, there's no reason they wouldn't have some kind of life.
而且，想必他们没有理由不拥有某种生活。
And, we'll come back in a minute: we'll talk about how you might think about what the odds of that are, and so on.
而且，我们稍后会回来：我们将讨论您如何看待这种情况的可能性，等等。
But, the other, of course--it's very much like religion or a hypothesis that cannot be refuted--is if people say, 'Well, why haven't they visited us?
但是，当然，另一个问题——这很像宗教或无法反驳的假设——是如果人们说，‘好吧，他们为什么不来拜访我们？
Or why haven't we found evidence?' The answer is: 'Well, it's far away.' And, it is far away, which is a fascinating reality as far as we understand science.
或者为什么我们还没有找到证据？答案是：“嗯，很远。”而且，它距离我们很远，就我们对科学的理解而言，这是一个令人着迷的现实。
If you lived in primitive times, the stars looked like maybe some kind of circle, a sphere that was around the Earth that had points of light; and, when we start to realize the distances.
如果你生活在原始时代，星星看起来可能像某种圆，一个围绕地球的球体，有光点；并且，当我们开始意识到距离时。
You quote Pascal: "Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m'effraie." I think I got it right.
你引用帕斯卡的话：“Le Silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m'effraie”。我想我做对了。
It's the most pretentious thing I know.
这是我所知道的最自命不凡的事情。
Sorry, I had to get it in there.
抱歉，我必须把它放进去。
'The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me.' When people start--and that was then .
“这些无限空间的永恒寂静让我感到恐惧。”当人们开始时——那就是那时。
That was Pascal, 1600s maybe.
那是帕斯卡，也许是 1600 年代。
When we think about what we know now , not only is the universe so vast, not only is every piece of it moving away from any kind of center, there's a cosmic sense of loneliness and despair.
当我们思考我们现在所知道的事情时，宇宙不仅如此浩瀚，不仅它的每一个部分都在远离任何中心，而且还有一种宇宙的孤独和绝望感。
So, on the one hand: Oh, they're out there, but we just can't communicate with them because they're really far away.
所以，一方面：哦，他们就在那里，但我们无法与他们交流，因为他们真的很远。
But, in another sense: If they're that far away, it almost doesn't matter because we're going to be alone.
但是，从另一种意义上说：如果他们离得那么远，那几乎无关紧要，因为我们将独自一人。
And, it's really hard for people to deal with that.
而且，人们确实很难处理这个问题。
Which is fascinating in and of itself.
这本身就很有趣。
So, talk about that because I have my own view on it.
所以，谈谈这个，因为我对此有自己的看法。
I'd love to hear what you have to say.
我很想听听你要说什么。
Adam Kirsch: Yeah.
亚当·基尔希：是的。
No, well, so what you say about the number of planets or our knowledge of how big the universe is--and so when, in medieval times or early modern times, when people thought the number of planets is five, because those are the ones that you can see with an unaided eye.
不，好吧，那么你所说的行星数量或我们对宇宙有多大的了解——以及在中世纪或现代早期，当人们认为行星的数量是五颗时，因为这些是你用肉眼可以看到的行星。
So, there are five planets.
所以，有五颗行星。
And then, when telescopes were developed, people discovered planets beyond Jupiter and Saturn, and that there are actually eight or nine, as we used to say, now eight.
然后，当望远镜研制出来后，人们发现了木星和土星之外的行星，实际上有八九个，就像我们过去常说的，现在是八个。
And then, as time goes on and we get a better sense that the universe is so large and potentially infinite, that there is a truly staggering number of potential planets.
然后，随着时间的推移，我们会更好地意识到宇宙是如此之大，并且可能是无限的，潜在行星的数量确实令人震惊。
So, if the number of planets goes from five to something like a sextillion or septillion, which is what current estimates are, then the odds of there being life on one of those planets seem to be enormous.
因此，如果行星的数量从五颗增加到六十亿或七亿（目前的估计是这样），那么其中一颗行星上存在生命的可能性似乎是巨大的。
However, the number of planets where we actually know that there's life is exactly the same: One.
然而，我们实际知道存在生命的行星数量是完全相同的：一颗。
And that's ours.
那是我们的。
So, if the denominator gets really huge and the numerator is still one, then you start to think, well, maybe life is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly rare.
所以，如果分母变得非常大而分子仍然是一，那么你就会开始思考，好吧，也许生命是非常、非常、非常罕见的。
It's inconceivably rare.
实在是太罕见了。
And so, that changes the way that we think about ourselves as a species, that: What if we're this lonely outpost of life and intelligence in a completely dead universe that goes on infinitely in every direction?
因此，这改变了我们对自己作为一个物种的看法：如果我们是一个完全死亡的宇宙中生命和智慧的孤独前哨，在各个方向上无限发展，该怎么办？
And so, then that's one possibility.
那么，这是一种可能性。
Another possibility is: What if life does exist elsewhere, but it's so rare that it's basically, it's effectively alone in time or space?
另一种可能性是：如果生命确实存在于其他地方，但它非常罕见，基本上在时间或空间上是孤立的，该怎么办？
That it happens so infrequently in time or space that one civilization, one intelligent being, will never encounter another one?
这种情况在时间或空间上发生得如此罕见，以至于一种文明、一种智慧生物永远不会遇到另一种文明？
So, first of all, how would you know the difference between those two things?
那么，首先，您如何知道这两件事之间的区别？
Because, if you can't see or contact something, how do you know it exists?
因为，如果你看不到或接触不到某些东西，你怎么知道它存在呢？
What would be the proof of it?
有什么证据可以证明这一点呢？
And then, what does that mean for us in our sense of our future?
那么，这对我们的未来意味着什么？
One of the big revelations or transformations of modern science in the way that humanity thinks about itself in the 19th century was the idea of extinction--the idea that there are species that have lived on Earth before us that went extinct.
现代科学对人类在 19 世纪思考自身的方式的重大启示或转变之一是灭绝的概念——即在我们之前生活在地球上的一些物种已经灭绝。
And, that the same thing is going to happen to us: One day our species will go extinct.
而且，同样的事情也会发生在我们身上：有一天我们的物种将会灭绝。
If we're the only species that has a mind, if we're the only species that thinks, that explores the universe, that's capable of science or religion or all the things that we think of as distinctively human, and then we're going to go extinct, that means all those things are going to disappear.
如果我们是唯一有思想的物种，如果我们是唯一会思考、探索宇宙、有能力进行科学或宗教或所有我们认为人类特有的事物的物种，那么我们就会灭绝，这意味着所有这些东西都会消失。
And that's a conclusion that I think all of us see with dread and want to resist.
我认为我们所有人都对这个结论感到恐惧并想要抵制。
So, how can we escape that conclusion?
那么，我们怎样才能逃脱这个结论呢？
Is there a way around it?
有办法解决吗？
Are there ways that we could think about life and intelligence that would keep us from being the only outpost of it in the entire universe?
我们是否可以通过一些方式来思考生命和智慧，从而避免我们成为整个宇宙中唯一的前哨站？
That's one of the things that I think motivates scientists.
我认为这是激励科学家的因素之一。
That's one of the reasons why scientists really dislike the idea that we are alone in the universe and want to find some way around that conclusion.
这就是为什么科学家们非常不喜欢我们在宇宙中是孤独的这个想法并希望找到某种方法来解决这个结论的原因之一。
Two basic ways around that conclusion are to find life somewhere else.
围绕这个结论的两个基本方法是在其他地方寻找生命。
And, I talk a bit about the attempts that are going on to do that.
而且，我谈了一些正在进行的尝试。
The other is to become the life somewhere else: to leave our planet, to spread ourselves across the galaxy.
另一种是成为其他地方的生命：离开我们的星球，到银河系各地去。
And, that's something that motivates someone like Elon Musk.
而且，这也激励着像埃隆·马斯克这样的人。
Elon Musk quite explicitly has always said, 'The reason why I want to develop all these space technologies is so that humanity won't be bound to one planet.
埃隆·马斯克总是明确表示：“我之所以要开发所有这些太空技术，是为了让人类不再被束缚在一个星球上。”
We'll put ourselves on Mars, and from there we'll go elsewhere, and eventually we'll colonize the universe.'
我们将把自己放在火星上，然后从那里前往其他地方，最终我们将殖民宇宙。”
Russ Roberts: So, I've never understood this, and maybe it's just my blind spot.
拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，我从来不理解这一点，也许这只是我的盲点。
There are many religious scientists, but let's take the ones who purport to not believe in any kind of God, who are purely materialist: 'There's no mysteries in the universe that we will not eventually plumb.
有很多宗教科学家，但让我们以那些声称不相信任何上帝的人为例，他们是纯粹的唯物主义者：“宇宙中没有我们最终无法探索的奥秘。”
Except for maybe the first Planck time.
也许除了第一次普朗克时间。
Otherwise, we're going to find everything out eventually.' Why does it matter if we're alone?
否则，我们最终会查出一切的。”为什么我们孤独很重要？
Why does it matter?
为什么这很重要？
I mean, really, who cares?
我的意思是，真的，谁在乎呢？
If you're a believer, if you think God has a purpose for the universe or for human beings, which even as a believer I think is a bit presumptuous.
如果你是一个信徒，如果你认为上帝对宇宙或人类有一个目的，即使作为一个信徒，我也认为这有点自以为是。
But, there is a certain feeling that there's something to appeal to.
但是，有一种感觉，有一些东西可以吸引人。
If there's nothing to appeal to, if we are alone, why does it matter that we spread ourselves?
如果没有什么可吸引的，如果我们孤身一人，为什么我们要传播自己呢？
Why does it matter that we're the only sentient creature that is aware of its place in the universe, that develops, say, Fermat's Last Theorem?
为什么我们是唯一意识到自己在宇宙中的位置并发展出费马大定理的有知觉的生物这一点很重要？
What's the point?
有什么意义？
And, why is the point redeemed if there's some other randomly--again, if you're not a believer, it's just another piece of random carbon- or not-carbon-based life, a zillion light years away that we can't talk to or can.
而且，如果有其他随机存在的话，为什么要赎回这一点呢？再说一次，如果你不是信徒，那只是另一片随机的碳基或非碳基生命，距离我们无法交谈或无法交谈的数十亿光年。
Doesn't matter.
没关系。
I mean, again, why don't you just take comfort that they're there and you can't reach them?
我的意思是，再说一遍，你为什么不因为他们就在那里而你却无法联系到他们而感到安慰呢？
Would that make you feel better if you're a pure materialist?
如果你是一个纯粹的物质主义者，这会让你感觉好一点吗？
Explain that.
解释一下。
I don't get it.
我不明白。
Adam Kirsch: Because I think that it actually matters more if you don't believe in God--if you don't believe in a transcendent dimension, if everything is material or natural in some way.
Adam Kirsch：因为我认为如果你不相信上帝，如果你不相信超越的维度，如果一切在某种程度上都是物质的或自然的，那么实际上更重要。
And, as far as we know, there's nothing that thinks except us.
而且，据我们所知，除了我们之外没有任何东西会思考。
If you believe that thought is important and understanding is important, then it's up to us to preserve it.
如果您认为思想很重要并且理解也很重要，那么我们就应该保护它。
That there is no divine understanding, there's no transcendent understanding, there's only human understanding.
没有神圣的理解，没有超然的理解，只有人类的理解。
So, if understanding matters, it's up to us to make sure that it survives.
因此，如果理解很重要，那么我们就需要确保它的生存。
So, then the question is: Does anything matter at all?
那么，问题是：有什么重要吗？
Where does the idea of mattering come from?
重要的想法从何而来？
And, there are definitely people who say that it only makes sense for something to truly matter if it matters to God.
而且，肯定有人说，只有对上帝重要的事情才有意义。
Only God can be the source of meaning.
只有上帝才能成为意义的源泉。
But, if you don't believe in God, you still have an instinct for meaning.
但是，如果你不相信上帝，你仍然有寻找意义的本能。
So, then the question is, where does that meaning come from?
那么，那么问题来了，这个意义从何而来？
It could only come from us.
它只能来自我们。
Meaning only comes from human beings.
意义仅来自人类。
We decide if things have meaning.
我们决定事情是否有意义。
And, we have decided--and especially for people like scientists or technology people, for whom intelligence and mind is how they think about themselves and that's what matters most to them--the idea that the universe could exist and there would be no mind in it, no one to see it or understand it, it would just be dead, dead matter for eternity, is terrifying.
而且，我们已经决定——特别是对于像科学家或技术人员这样的人来说，智力和思想是他们如何看待自己的，这对他们来说是最重要的——宇宙可能存在，但其中没有思想，没有人看到它或理解它，它只是死的，永远死的物质，这一想法是可怕的。
It would be like an eternity of meaninglessness.
这就像永恒的无意义。
So, then--
那么，那么——
Russ Roberts: But, isn't that the legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition?
拉斯·罗伯茨：但是，这不是犹太基督教传统的遗产吗？
I mean, isn't that because these people have, for better, for worse, grown up in a culture and a civilization that--why should that matter?
我的意思是，这难道不是因为这些人（无论好坏）是在一种文化和文明中长大的——为什么这很重要？
I don't get it.
我不明白。
Russ Roberts: Why should meaning matter?
拉斯·罗伯茨：为什么意义很重要？
Why should we care about meaning ?
我们为什么要关心意义？
It seems silly.
看起来很傻。
That comes from our religious heritage.
这来自我们的宗教传统。
If you don't believe in religion, you should just push that aside.
如果你不信仰宗教，你应该把它放在一边。
And, why would it matter whether thinking is preserved?
而且，为什么思维是否被保留很重要呢？
How would you justify that?
你会如何证明这一点？
Adam Kirsch: I think the answer is: mattering is something that only happens with human beings.
Adam Kirsch：我认为答案是：重要的事情只发生在人类身上。
And so, it's the same answer as morality.
所以，这与道德的答案是一样的。
Why is it important to do what's good instead of what's evil?
为什么行善比行恶更重要？
One answer is because God told us to.
答案之一是因为神告诉我们这样做。
But, if God didn't tell us to, then what are the other answers?
但是，如果上帝没有告诉我们，那么其他答案是什么？
People who don't believe God told us to still believe in good and evil.
不相信上帝的人告诉我们仍然要相信善与恶。
They still want things to happen and other things not to happen.
他们仍然希望某些事情发生，而另一些事情不发生。
But, they would say that the basis of that is us .
但是，他们会说，基础是我们。
It's not God: it's us.
这不是上帝：是我们。
We are the ones who decide for whom it matters that there's good rather than evil.
我们是决定对谁来说善而不是恶的人。
We're the ones for whom it matters whether there's mind in the universe or not.
对于我们来说，宇宙中是否有思想很重要。
And, in fact, on a sort of materialist view, that has always been the case.
事实上，从某种唯物主义观点来看，情况一直如此。
I mean, there's never really been any other point of view except ours.
我的意思是，除了我们的观点之外，从来没有真正的其他观点。
A human being can have no point of view except a human point of view.
除了人类的观点之外，人类不可能有任何观点。
And so, if something matters, it means it matters for us.
因此，如果某件事很重要，那就意味着它对我们很重要。
And, I think that's the answer.
而且，我认为这就是答案。
It matters for us because it matters for us.
这对我们很重要，因为它对我们很重要。
And, we are the kind of creature for whom it matters, or we have decided that it matters, but that there's no better explanation than that.
而且，我们是那种认为它很重要的生物，或者我们已经决定它很重要，但没有比这更好的解释了。
Russ Roberts: Yeah, I don't find that persuasive.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，我觉得这没有说服力。
But, a topic for another conversation.
但是，这是另一个话题。
Russ Roberts: I want to move on to two other parts of the scientific response to this question, which I thought were extremely interesting.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我想继续讨论这个问题的科学回答的其他两个部分，我认为这非常有趣。
The first is: We spent and have spent, maybe we're still spending--you'll know and I've forgotten, but you write about it--we spent a lot of time on radio transmission: sending out radio signals, receiving radio signals.
第一个是：我们花费了并且已经花费了，也许我们还在花费——你会知道，我已经忘记了，但你写了——我们在无线电传输上花了很多时间：发送无线电信号，接收无线电信号。
We sent out, I think--was it Voyager we sent out into the--I forget which mission it was--
我想我们派出了——我们派出的航海者号进入了——我忘记了那是哪个任务——
Adam Kirsch: Yes, Voyager, yeah, One and Two--
Adam Kirsch：是的，航行者号，是的，一和二——
Russ Roberts: with all kinds of things that we thought, if someone found them, they would understand that we cared--which obviously we do, by the way, regardless of whether it's rational or not, I think we do care.
拉斯·罗伯茨：对于我们想到的各种各样的事情，如果有人找到了它们，他们就会明白我们在乎——显然我们确实在乎，顺便说一句，不管它是否合理，我认为我们确实在乎。
I don't mean to suggest that that's--I was doing a reductio ad absurdum there.
我并不是说那是——我在那里做了反证法。
But, you make the fantastic point, which I just never thought about, which is: a civilization that's capable of communicating over enormous numbers of light years and have reached a--if human beings were able to avoid extinction for a million years, presumably we'd be able to do a bunch of things in a million years from now that we can't do now.
但是，你提出了一个我从未想过的奇妙观点，那就是：一个能够在数光年之外进行交流的文明，并且已经达到了——如果人类能够在一百万年内避免灭绝，那么我们大概能够在一百万年后做很多我们现在做不到的事情。
Extraordinary things that we can't, of course, imagine.
当然，我们无法想象的非凡事物。
But, we probably wouldn't be using radio waves.
但是，我们可能不会使用无线电波。
So, the window for detecting radio transmissions is something akin to finding a horse-drawn carriage.
因此，检测无线电传输的窗口类似于寻找马车。
There's a period where they exist, but after that it's left behind, and it's not going to be the fingerprint of intelligence anymore.
它们存在一段时期，但在那之后它就被抛在了身后，它不再是智慧的指纹。
Fascinating to me.
让我着迷。
I never thought about it.
我从来没有想过。
Adam Kirsch: Yeah.
亚当·基尔希：是的。
And, one thing I say in the book is that when we talk about aliens--non-human intelligence--we're always talking about ourselves.
而且，我在书中说的一件事是，当我们谈论外星人（非人类智能）时，我们总是在谈论我们自己。
We're always drawing our own self-portrait.
我们总是在画自己的自画像。
Because until and unless we actually find an alien, there's absolutely nothing for us to talk about except our own experience, what comes out of our own experience.
因为除非我们真的找到了外星人，否则除了我们自己的经历，我们自己的经历之外，我们绝对没有什么可谈论的。
So, one thing that you see over the last 75 years in the so-called space age is that our ideas about what the future looks like, what an advanced civilization might look like, is based on changes in our own civilization, our own ideas about technology.
因此，在过去 75 年里，在所谓的太空时代，你看到的一件事是，我们对未来的看法，先进文明的看法，是基于我们自己的文明的变化，我们自己对技术的看法。
So, in the 1950s, when radio astronomy was first invented and developed, people thought, 'Well, of course aliens out there will be so advanced that they'll also have radio astronomy, and we'll be able to pick up their signals.'
因此，在 20 世纪 50 年代，当射电天文学首次发明和发展时，人们想，“当然，外星人会如此先进，他们也会拥有射电天文学，我们将能够接收到他们的信号。”
Then as time went on and we didn't hear any radio signals--and we still haven't, although there are some people listening for them--people started to say, 'Well, actually, if you look at what's happening on Earth, we're using fewer radio signals, radio transmissions, and everything is fiber optic cables.' Maybe in the future, a really advanced technology would basically be invisible because they would be so advanced, their technology would be so shrunk down and so dense, and every bit would contain meaning, that it would essentially disappear from the sky.
然后随着时间的推移，我们没有听到任何无线电信号——而且我们仍然没有听到，尽管有人在听——人们开始说，“好吧，实际上，如果你看看地球上正在发生的事情，我们使用的无线电信号、无线电传输越来越少，一切都是光纤电缆。”也许在未来，真正先进的技术基本上是看不见的，因为它们太先进了，它们的技术会如此缩小、如此密集，每一个比特都包含意义，以至于它基本上会从天空中消失。
Instead of being bigger, it would be smaller.
它不会变大，而是变小。
That's a reflection of the way our technology has developed.
这反映了我们技术的发展方式。
And, one of the unknowable things about this is, as long as you have a sample of one, you don't know whether what's happened to humanity is a rule or an exception.
而且，其中一个不可知的事情是，只要你有一个样本，你就不知道人类所发生的事情是规律还是例外。
There are all kinds of reasons to think that the development of advanced intelligence on Earth was extremely, extremely unlikely.
有各种各样的理由认为，地球上发展高级智能的可能性极小。
So, instead of taking it as, this is something that's going to happen everywhere at some point, just by the odds because there's so many planets, you could also argue the contrary case, which is: this is something that almost never happens.
所以，你不应该认为这是在某个时刻到处都会发生的事情，只是因为有这么多行星而有可能发生，你也可以提出相反的情况，即：这是几乎永远不会发生的事情。
And, it's so rare that we will never come across another example of it because there are so many prerequisites for intelligent life to evolve that all of them aren't going to come together except on very, very rare occasions.
而且，这种情况非常罕见，我们永远不会遇到另一个例子，因为智能生命进化的先决条件太多了，除非在非常非常罕见的情况下，所有这些先决条件都不会聚集在一起。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
And, you talk about the Drake Equation, which is an attempt to try to vaguely quantify some of these things.
而且，你谈到了德雷克方程，它试图模糊地量化其中一些东西。
I found this fascinating--the idea that life on Earth probably needed a moon, something like our Moon, meaning eventually became roundish, very close to something more sphere-like rather than just some crazy rock or oblong thing.
我发现这很有趣——地球上的生命可能需要月球，就像我们的月球一样，这意味着最终会变得圆形，非常接近于类似球体的东西，而不仅仅是一些疯狂的岩石或椭圆形的东西。
The idea that plate tectonics might be important to the development of life.
板块构造可能对生命发展很重要的想法。
These are not things that we've thought about, but people are increasingly thinking about them and realizing that it's a little more complicated than it seemed.
这些不是我们考虑过的事情，但人们越来越多地思考它们，并意识到它比看起来要复杂一些。
Adam Kirsch: Yes.
亚当·基尔希：是的。
And, there's this whole field called astrobiology, which is, again, a contradiction in terms because we have never encountered any biology among the stars.
而且，还有一个叫做天体生物学的领域，这又是一个术语上的矛盾，因为我们从未在恒星中遇到过任何生物学。
We've only encountered biology on Earth.
我们只在地球上遇到过生物。
But, astrobiology is really an attempt to think about that question of what are the prerequisites of life and under what conditions could life exist?
但是，天体生物学实际上是尝试思考生命的先决条件是什么以及生命在什么条件下存在的问题？
So, right now, the general rule of thumb is we know that on Earth there's no life without liquid water.
因此，目前的一般经验法则是，我们知道地球上没有液态水就没有生命。
So, the places we should look are planets where there could be liquid water.
因此，我们应该寻找可能存在液态水的行星。
And, that means they have to be the so-called Goldilocks planets.
而且，这意味着它们必须是所谓的金发姑娘行星。
If they're too close to a star, the water all dissolves and evaporates.
如果它们离恒星太近，水就会全部溶解并蒸发。
If they're too far from a star, the water all freezes and becomes ice.
如果它们离恒星太远，水就会全部冻结并变成冰。
So, you want to look for planets that are within a certain distance range from a star so there could be liquid water.
因此，您想要寻找距恒星一定距离范围内的行星，以便可能存在液态水。
And, that is just the most basic rule of thumb: No liquid water, no life.
而且，这只是最基本的经验法则：没有液态水，就没有生命。
But, that doesn't mean that where there's liquid water, there is life.
但是，这并不意味着哪里有液态水，哪里就有生命。
It doesn't go the other way around.
事实并非相反。
It's a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.
这是必要条件，但不是充分条件。
And, as we come to learn more about biology and about the history of life on Earth, all kinds of things that you would never intuitively think of as necessary for life, people are starting to say, well, maybe we need not just liquid water, but a moon.
而且，随着我们对生物学和地球上生命的历史有了更多的了解，以及各种你永远不会直观地认为生命所必需的东西，人们开始说，好吧，也许我们不仅需要液态水，还需要月球。
And, maybe we don't just need a moon, but we need Jupiter.
而且，也许我们不仅需要月亮，还需要木星。
Because if it weren't for Jupiter, Earth would be constantly bombarded by asteroids and comets and things from outer space, and it would keep destroying life on Earth.
因为如果没有木星，地球就会不断受到小行星、彗星和外太空物体的轰炸，地球上的生命就会不断遭到毁灭。
The fact that that only happens, if rarely, in the history of Earth is because we have this big planet that's outside and has a big gravitational pull that's taking these things away from us.
事实上，这种情况在地球历史上很少发生，因为我们有一颗位于外部的大行星，并且具有巨大的引力，正在将这些东西从我们身边夺走。
So, if you had a planet just like Earth, but it didn't have a Jupiter near it, that planet would just be destroyed repeatedly by impacts, and life couldn't evolve there.
因此，如果有一颗像地球一样的行星，但它附近没有木星，那么该行星只会因撞击而反复被摧毁，生命无法在那里进化。
So, there are all kinds of interesting ways to think about that, that, as science progresses, makes life actually seem rarer and more unique rather than more common.
因此，有各种有趣的方式来思考这个问题，随着科学的进步，生命实际上看起来更加稀有和更加独特，而不是更加普遍。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
One thing that's beautiful about this whole field, mainly from the scientific perspective, is it forces you to think about how limited our knowledge is.
主要从科学角度来看，整个领域的美妙之处在于它迫使你思考我们的知识是多么有限。
And, we learn more and more in trying to--this is to give Avi Loeb his due--when we start to think about, if we're open to it, there are certain things we might not otherwise learn.
而且，当我们开始思考，如果我们持开放态度，有些事情我们可能无法通过其他方式学到，我们在尝试中学到了越来越多的东西——这是给予阿维·勒布他应得的。
And of course, the other part of it is we're so limited by the one data point.
当然，另一方面是我们受到一个数据点的限制。
When we think about aliens--you pointed out there's an alien emoji.
当我们想到外星人时，你指出有一个外星人表情符号。
It's a long head with weird little black, slitted eyes, and we assume it would look something like us.
它的头很长，长着奇怪的黑色小眼睛，我们猜想它看起来会像我们。
Maybe have extra fingers or maybe it'd be tall or really tall or really short.
也许有多余的手指，或者可能会很高或非常高或非常短。
But that's the best we can do.
但这是我们能做的最好的事情。
Our understanding of consciousness is so primitive and of intelligence is so primitive, we really can't even think--I think it's hard to think carefully about what form it might take if it weren't developed on Earth.
我们对意识和智能的理解是如此原始，我们甚至无法思考——我认为很难仔细思考如果它不是在地球上发展出来的，它会采取什么形式。
Adam Kirsch: Definitely.
亚当·基尔希：当然。
We're always the model for what we're imagining.
我们永远是我们想象的模型。
And, it's hard to see how it could be otherwise.
而且，很难想象事情会怎样。
We are thinking from a position of: We're humans on Earth.
我们的思考立场是：我们是地球上的人类。
We don't know about anything else, any other kind of experience or life except that of humans or maybe animals or other living things on Earth.
除了人类、动物或地球上其他生物之外，我们不知道任何其他事情、任何其他类型的经历或生活。
So, when we think about what does it mean to be an intelligent being, we think it's something like us.
所以，当我们思考成为一个智慧生物意味着什么时，我们认为它就像我们一样。
And, how could we imagine something that's not like us?
而且，我们怎么能想象出一些与我们不同的东西呢？
That's very different from us?
这和我们有很大不同吗？
It's extremely challenging because it's so different.
这是非常具有挑战性的，因为它是如此不同。
It's hard to imagine something totally different from what we know.
很难想象有什么与我们所知道的完全不同的事情。
Russ Roberts: I want to close with--well, one other thing, sorry, one other thing I want to get in, which is so interesting.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我想以——嗯，另一件事结束，抱歉，我想谈另一件事，这很有趣。
This 2015 speech by Stephen Hawking, that communicating with aliens--which I think there's an enormous, obviously bifurcated, sci-fi literature of aliens come to Earth and kill us, and aliens come to Earth and cure cancer and do good things.
斯蒂芬·霍金 2015 年的演讲，关于与外星人交流——我认为这是一个巨大的、明显分歧的科幻文学，外星人来到地球杀死我们，外星人来到地球治愈癌症并做善事。
People like to be scared, so I think most of them are on the negative side.
人们喜欢害怕，所以我认为大多数人都处于消极的一面。
But, coming back to Steven Spielberg, E.T.
但是，回到史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格，E.T.
is a love story.
是一个爱情故事。
E.T.
外星人
is about how glorious it would be to have any kind of communion with an alien creature.
是关于与外星生物进行任何形式的交流将是多么荣耀。
And, Hawking said, 'That probably shouldn't be our default.' What was his argument?
而且，霍金说，“这可能不应该成为我们的默认设置。”他的论点是什么？
It's fascinating.
这很有趣。
Adam Kirsch: Yes.
亚当·基尔希：是的。
I mean, there's definitely an argument which says that--I think what Hawking said specifically is that it could be more like Europe discovering the New World and conquering it and invading it and destroying it.
我的意思是，肯定有一个论点说——我认为霍金具体说的是，它可能更像是欧洲发现新大陆、征服它、入侵它并摧毁它。
So, if we invite the attention of a technologically advanced species and it comes to Earth, and it's much more technologically advanced than we are, it could just wipe us out, and there would be nothing we could do about it.
因此，如果我们引起了一个技术先进的物种的注意，而它来到了地球，而且它的技术比我们先进得多，它可能会把我们消灭掉，而我们对此无能为力。
That's one way of looking at it.
这是看待问题的一种方式。
And then, in H.G.
然后，在 H.G.
Wells, in The War of the Worlds , thought of it even more as like the way we think about germs.
威尔斯在《世界大战》中认为这更像是我们思考细菌的方式。
Aliens might think about us the way we think about germs or bacteria.
外星人可能会像我们看待细菌或细菌一样看待我们。
Like, they wouldn't even think of us as something to spare or have any concern for at all.
就像，他们甚至不会认为我们是值得饶恕或关心的东西。
They would just go on their way, do what they want to do, and we would pay the price for it.
他们会继续走自己的路，做他们想做的事，而我们会为此付出代价。
So, the idea of, would aliens be benevolent, is something that we always think about, but until we actually meet an alien, there's no way to know.
所以，外星人会不会仁慈，是我们一直在想的事情，但在我们真正见到外星人之前，我们无法知道。
Russ Roberts: And, I would just add, it reminds me of your point about we're limited by our own understanding of ourselves.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我想补充一点，这让我想起你的观点，即我们受到对自己的理解的限制。
Using the--Stephen Hawking is a very smart man, high IQ [intelligence quotient]--but using the European destruction of the Aztec, say, which was horrific, is maybe not the best.
使用——斯蒂芬霍金是一个非常聪明的人，高智商——但是使用欧洲对阿兹特克人的毁灭，比如说，这是可怕的，也许不是最好的。
It's a data point for sure, but something that was so technologically advanced, had survived extinction, maybe they won't think of us as bacteria.
这肯定是一个数据点，但技术如此先进的东西在灭绝中幸存下来，也许他们不会将我们视为细菌。
Maybe they'll think about us the way vegans think about dogs.
也许他们会像素食主义者看待狗一样看待我们。
Adam Kirsch: Right, no, it's completely impossible to know.
Adam Kirsch：是的，不，这完全不可能知道。
It all depends on what metaphor you want to use.
这完全取决于你想使用什么比喻。
Russ Roberts: Okay.
拉斯·罗伯茨：好的。
So, close with a quote.
因此，以引用结束。
Adam Kirsch: Yeah.
亚当·基尔希：是的。
I think that that gets to this question of why do we want to believe in aliens?
我认为这涉及到为什么我们要相信外星人的问题？
That, there's a place in our map of the universe that we want there to be something there.
也就是说，在我们的宇宙地图上有一个地方，我们希望那里有一些东西。
We want there to be something other than us there.
我们希望那里有除我们之外的东西。
And, for people for whom that space is not occupied by God or anything super natural, it can only be occupied by something natural.
而且，对于那些空间没有被上帝或任何超自然事物占据的人来说，它只能被自然的东西占据。
Aliens is a way to answer that question.
外星人是回答这个问题的一种方式。
It's a way of saying: Here's something that doesn't require religious belief, but it does for us a lot of what religious belief would do.
这是一种说法：有些东西不需要宗教信仰，但它为我们做了很多宗教信仰所能做的事情。
It opens up the universe.
它打开了宇宙。
It gives us something to hope for and to communicate with and another kind of mind.
它给了我们一些希望和交流的东西，以及另一种心灵。
And, I think that that's why it appeals to a lot of people--a lot of thoughtful people--who would like for there to be something like that in the universe.
而且，我认为这就是为什么它吸引了很多人——很多有思想的人——他们希望宇宙中存在这样的东西。
Who want that horizon of mystery, who want the sense that we don't know everything.
谁想要那种神秘的地平线，谁想要我们不知道一切的感觉。
There's things we don't know.
有些事情我们不知道。
There's another step for us to take.
我们还需要采取另一个步骤。
And so, I think, in the end, I came away from writing this book with a respect for the desire for aliens, a respect for the desire to believe in aliens.
所以，我认为，最终，我在写这本书时怀着对外星人的渴望的尊重，对相信外星人的渴望的尊重。
It's something that I think we don't have grounds for proving .
我认为我们没有理由证明这一点。
I mean, I would say we still have to believe because we don't have evidence.
我的意思是，我想说我们仍然必须相信，因为我们没有证据。
But, I understand why people want to believe in that.
但是，我理解为什么人们愿意相信这一点。
And, I think it's a worthy belief.
而且，我认为这是一个值得相信的信念。
Russ Roberts: My guest today has been Adam Kirsch.
拉斯·罗伯茨：今天我的客人是亚当·基尔希。
His book is We Want to Believe .
他的书是《我们想要相信》。
Adam, thanks for being part of EconTalk.
Adam，感谢您参与 EconTalk。
Adam Kirsch: Thanks so much.
亚当·基尔希：非常感谢。
I really enjoyed it.
我真的很喜欢它。