According to Professor Perlmutter, the project started as an educational course for undergraduate students, with the support of a philosopher and a psychology professor, to have a constructive discussion about current societal affairs.

The three researchers have built the course on scientific and critical thinking.

In this interview, Professor Perlmutter discusses how that educational course evolved and why they decided to collect its topics to publish a book for the general public.

Ahram Online: When have you decided to focus on the current societal problems aside from your research work?

Saul Perlmutter: This started more than 13 years ago. From my observation of how societies and politicians decide on an issue like the right level to set debts, it sounded like a religious debate.

It was not what you would hear over a lunch table discussion of a few scientists asking the same questions as if scientists use a different vocabulary, totally unrelated to what I hear in society and the news.

This prompted me to a thinking methodology that we scientists learn by conducting research and use at the university to analyze problems.

Therefore, I found that the methodology of thinking and ideas we learn at the science school to solve problems are important for all people to learn, not just scientists and researchers.

I found myself asking, can we articulate each of these different ideas and try to teach them at a much younger age? I tried to apply this first when I was assigned to teach a course on physics and music.

I was known to be playing the violin and singing besides some knowledge about the basics of orchestra and musical instruments.

In the beginning, I thought it would not be interesting to students at the beginning, especially since it would be the most boring part of physics and music. However, later, I found out that it is an opportunity to explain how science works using physics and music as the way in.

That ended up bringing a lot of fun for undergraduates from all different disciplines, including students from humanities schools who needed to take a science course and liked music. It also inspired me to use this type of course to teach subjects beyond physics like elements of scientific thinking.

AO: What was the following project you worked on?

SP: After that experience, there was a call at Berkeley University for “the big idea” courses taught by staff members from different fields.

For example, a historian professor, a physicist, and a musician have taught a course about time. So, I thought it may be a good idea to suggest a course about thinking and societal problems.

I had to look for collaborators who would bring different elements aside from the rational ideas in decision-making I have been teaching as a physicist.

So, I found a social psychologist from the School of Public Policies at Stanford University, Professor Robert MacCoun, and a philosopher, Professor John Campbell, from the University of California, Berkeley. They brought important subjects to the course like how human values, goals, fears, and ambitions influence our decisions in life.

AO: How long did it take you to make a curriculum?

SP: Nearly nine months. We had regular meetings, and when one of us spoke, the two others were commenting and building discussions that we used in the course. We also organized public seminars to discuss the content of our course and get the people’s feedback.

By the end of formulating the course in October 2011, I was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics with Professors Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt for discovering the universe's accelerating expansion through observations of distant supernovae. That award brought more attention to the interdisciplinary course I was teaching with my colleagues.

AO: What were the important concepts that you brought into the course?

SP: We discussed several issues such as methods of deception in reading ratios and statistics; the mistakes we make in assuming causes without sufficient evidence; how we deal with difficult problems in the absence of certainty; how big data or deviation between data affect decision-making; and how can we have a clear vision regarding global issues like climate change or the next pandemic?

In short, we tried to explain through examples how to avoid fooling ourselves by asking the right questions and thinking differently in dealing with societal and global problems.

I was also keen to convey the importance of intensifying attention for the time we need to solve problems, and this is exactly what we do in the laboratory until we reach discovery or innovation, unlike what happens in society.

People quickly lose interest and passion if the problem is not solved immediately. This requires changing the society's culture, especially if there is a clear vision for development and mechanisms for evaluating policies every few years.

Finally, we introduced the concept of a deliberative opinion poll. This concept was first described in 1988 and is currently applied to discuss local policies in countries like Ireland, France, Canada, and many others.

This technique relies on taking a random representative sample of citizens and engaging them in deliberation on current issues or proposed policy changes based on their knowledge and personal assessments.

Then, we repeat the same poll after engaging them in discussions with competing experts and providing all required data. This routine helps create more informed and reflective public opinion. It also helps to assess social and psychological reasons for accepting or rejecting a policy.

AO: What was the students’ feedback?

SP: In fact, students admired the vivid interaction between the three professors during the classes and how we could model the ability to think together as experts from different disciplines in solving a societal problem.

This motivated us to continue teaching the course for several years. We made the course available to be taught at Harvard, Irvine, and Chicago universities, in addition to the University of California, Berkeley.

Additionally, we are collaborating with the Nobel Prize Outreach organization to develop a high school version of the course to reach a younger age group.

AO: Why have you decided to turn the course into a book? and why not years ago?

SP: First, we wanted to understand what happens when you teach the material. So over the years, we tried different techniques in teaching it; we filmed ourselves and the students in the classes while teaching; and we did an assessment material to evaluate how far the students were learning from that course.

Thus, we took plenty of time to see if we were teaching the course reasonably well. Then we decided to make the content available for the public and write a book.

As you know, writing a book with three people takes several years, and in this particular case, it hit just during the pandemic. We had more time to work together via online meetings. We tried to get the project done as fast as possible because at the beginning we were concerned about how American society was making bad decisions.

Over the years, things seem to have gotten worse and worse. We kept thinking that we needed to get this material out sooner and how to educate more people faster.

It feels like we are living in a world which is doing a bizarre thing. The moment we realized that we could solve problems collectively, we were scared of each other; we did not talk to each other; we did not solve the problems.   

AO: How could you agree on the book's plot, ideas, and narration style?  

SP: I think this is because of our discussions for several years. In some of the book's paragraphs, perhaps we were keen to clarify each other's views on certain subjects.

However, in most chapters, we were one voice in addressing the societal problems from scientific, social, and philosophical perspectives.

AO: To what extent do you expect this effort to influence American and international public opinion?

SP: The world today is more divided than ever before. Of course, we do not expect a direct impact on the general scene, but we hope the book will contribute to presenting the importance of constructive discussion.

Without discussions and evaluation of ideas, scientific research would not have developed. We hope societies and political parties will adopt this way of thinking.