Ramón Núñez, science communicator: "Anyone who lives a life based solely on rationality is going to have a very bad time."

Ramón Núñez (A Coruña, 78) is one of the greatest science communicators in Spain, especially as a designer of science museums. He created three museums in his hometown: the Casa de las Ciencias, the Domus, and the Finisterrae Aquarium. He was also the driving force behind and director of the National Museum of Science and Technology and has advised on other spaces dedicated to making the scientific enterprise attractive and understandable, such as the Pamplona Planetarium and the Príncipe Felipe Science Museum in Valencia. He recently presented his latest book in Madrid and at another science center, the National Museum of Natural Sciences. It is The Calendar of the History of Science , a kind of almanac that tells the story of a discovery or event related to science or technology that occurred on that date each day of the year.

Núñez considers this book—a good tool for familiarizing oneself day by day with many of history's scientific discoveries and their key figures—to be his best work. In a conversation with EL PAÍS prior to the presentation of his scientific calendar, this museologist and science popularizer reflects on the power of science to change the world and how necessary it is in our daily lives; never in isolation, but rather accompanied by ethics and reaching out to explore poetry, art, and philosophy. Since his early days as a schoolteacher, Núñez has always refused to replace faith in God with faith in science; today he adds: "Anyone who lives a life based entirely on rationality is going to have a very bad time."

Question: Science is sometimes treated as a source of curious stories , and included in newspapers' so-called soft sections, but nothing is more transformative.

Answer: Science is not only polymorphic, but multipurpose. Science is a source of entertainment, of enlightenment, insofar as it allows us to gain knowledge of our surroundings, and once we gain knowledge of something, we can then play with that something. In that sense, science with culture can allow us to play, but it's also a driving force of progress. The most powerful there is, according to [Francis] Bacon. Science is what changes our quality of life, it's what improves our health, improves our communications, improves our possibilities for socialization, everything.

It's a stereotype that people become skeptical as we get older and don't believe in anything. Well, at the end of life, I believe in something, and I believe in science. I believe science is very useful and necessary for individuals and society. It's useful for understanding the world, for living in balance with the environment, and it's useful for changing the world. Now, if you tell me, "Science is enough," well, no. It's necessary, but it's not enough. In addition to science, we need love. Love for our fellow human beings, love for humanity, love for the planet. Science alone without values ​​is worthless.

Q. But science and technology also cause serious problems for people, as seen in the Industrial Revolution.

A. Ethical and moral decisions come after the fact. We discover the knife and see that it's useful for eating, and then we discover that it's useful for killing a fellow human being. And then we introduce the ethical code. Ethics or legislation follow the achievement, because unpredictability is a condition of the future.

Q. Does artificial intelligence make you dizzy?

A. It really makes me dizzy. When I think about this, I'm very glad I lived the years I did because I felt I could mentally control my world. My only hope now is that young people, who have been educated at a different pace of progress and knowledge, also have the skills to control these weapons that are so powerful. But they make me dizzy. I don't say fear, but vertigo.

Q. AI is supposed to allow us to develop new materials more quickly, create new drugs to treat diseases, and make our lives easier in every way. And yet, it scares us so much.

A. Because it is too powerful, it must scare a sensible person.

Q. In your latest book, you mention that, before Foucault's pendulum demonstrated the Earth's rotation, it was already widely accepted that the Earth rotated on its own axis, rather than intuitively thinking that the Sun revolved around the Earth, although this hadn't been proven. Do we believe in science too much without knowing how to explain why?

A. When I taught science education courses to teachers, I used to present a game in which I was a shepherd and they had to convince me that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the other way around. No one ever managed to convince me. So, if a kid tells you in class that they don't believe the story you're telling them about the Earth revolving around the Sun, what do you do? Do you punish them because you can't impress your faith upon them? No, you have to respect them and value their critical spirit and think of the arguments you can use to convince them.

Q. Did the way science was used during the pandemic, when it was used to justify political decisions, harm science?

A. It did harm to science because it was used as an argument of authority. That's why I think it's important to demystify. There's a quote by Richard Feynman that says, "Science is believing in the ignorance of scientists." In the book, I often try to make light of things, demystify science, and humanize it. Science is made by human beings, who have their vices, virtues, and whims. You can't use science as an infallible argument to justify policies, to say, "We're going to do this because science says so."

Q. How do you see the situation of science in Spain?

A. We have a complex about not being capable, and that's false. I mean, we're as capable as any other nation. We should have spent more, but that's obvious; I don't need to say it.

Q. There's another commemoration in the book in which you talk about the meeting between Einstein and the philosopher Bergson , who argued that there was a subjective time beyond that measured by physicists. It's a very interesting story about the power and limits of science.

A. There's a phrase by Confucius that says nothing passes faster than the years. And it's true, because there are minutes that seem eternal and years that fly by. There's a perception of time that's intimate, that's personal. Waiting times are extremely slow, and there are other times that pass very quickly. But of course, Einstein has to tell you that all of those are stories. Because when it comes down to it, the only real time is the one that can be measured. But science cannot deny poetry. It would be stupid to live without poetry, without beauty. Art is necessary, just like science.

Q. What do you think of the skeptical movement, which seeks a confrontation between materialism and people who think metaphysics can be useful?

A. Pure materialism is very useful for solving a lot of problems, but let's qualify this. I consider myself a very rational person, but in my life, the decisions that have given me the most pleasure have been very irrational. Today I ate wonderfully, but in a very irrational way, because I had excessive levels of triglycerides, cholesterol, alcohol... An important decision in my life, like getting married, was based on falling in love, and falling in love is anything but rational. The decision to study certain subjects had to do with the fact that my best friend was studying them. Anyone who lives a life based entirely on rationality is going to have a very bad time.

Q. How can science be explained to children and young people without giving it as a catechism?

A. For me, the key is to hold the child's hand and look in the same direction. If they ask a question, you don't have to give them an answer. The child can't imagine the adult is a factory of answers. You have to help them look so they can find the answer. It's about, instead of facing them to answer, standing on their side and asking questions with them and channeling them. And not worrying that one question will generate more questions.