Yes, sir. The number of the population. In part because people are springing back and forth between the sides. There is a famous john adams statement a third were loyalist and a third were in the middle. I think that is almost certainly on the loyalist too high. And probably too low on the patriots. And too low on the people in the middle. My best sense, i would say about a fifth of the American People are willing to make a pretty strong commitment to the union of the empire. Two fifths are willing to make a strong commitment to military resistance and ultimately to independence and that leads another two fifths of the population that are in the middle. Those proportions well have an flow over the course of the war but that loyalist fit will keep shrinking over time. They are so frustrated with british treatment and they are so often experienced being subject to severe punishment when they fail to protect them that they make the quite rational decision that if order is ever going to be restored in this category its can be done by the patriots and not the british. Thus the conclusion that most of the make. The patriot proportion grows. A lot of wavering people who are mostly going along with the patriots by the end of the war. How are the numbers . Talking about a populace into a half Million People. 500,000 of whom are enslaved. Most of those 500,000 if they get a choice to express themselves will support the british as a that is a lot of people. A lot of enslaved people are in situations they cant express themselves. Not all 500,000 runaway to the british thats just not possible. The highest estimates will say maybe 30,000. And i think its probably even lower than that. In large parts youve all of these cousins and so forth he cant get can get everybody out at once so you stay put. This is the last question. The title of your book is American Revolutions in the dates are 1750 to 1804 are they not only the revolution of independence but social revolutions religious revolutions can you kind of tell us which ones are you talking about. That is a great question. Why are the start dates that. Why the end date of 1804. Am i call it American Revolutions rather than just American Revolution. 1750 is for me to set the stage for colonial americas because the work doesnt just involve the british colonies along the atlantic seaboard it will involve the spanish colonies mexico, cuba, spanish colonies california and new mexico indirectly. It will also involve british colonies into the north that are not part of the United States. It will involve newfoundland so what is it there are 27 british colonies i think that is the number that i got from your book. So only half of them will reject the British Empire but they are the half with most of the people of british dissent it is the calling needs overwhelmingly that will revolt while the colonies of smaller populations more dependent upon maritime trade and protection will tend to stay loyal to the British Empire. Now the American Revolution is also talking about the coming of the haitian revolution and so im ending 1804 which is when haiti ends their war. If they set the precedent for a revolution of colonial liberation than the second shoe to drop is the french colony which will be haiti in 1804 because this is being done my enslaved people of african descent and a fair number of white people are going to be killed and that it actually ends up being very disturbing to the people who have come to be the leaders of the United States. They are appalled by this. And then contributes to every definition of the American Revolution as the orderly revolution. Something that perhaps only people in the United States were capable of. It is a great narrowing of the vision of a revolution that someone have back in 1776. It is a crystallizing moment for what does revolution mean in the americas and who is into is eligible in the eyes of american leaders. And i start was 1750 to set the stage for all of this. The second way is that it meant Different Things to different people within the Patriot Coalition and so Thomas Jefferson is gonna come out with a very different vision of what it was in should be in this consequences Alexander Hamilton did. There will be a very bitter politic trying to sort out whose vision of the revolution will be triumphant. And in the shorterterm jefferson certainly tramped there. But i think thats a discussion we are still having in our politics. As to what exactly did the founders intend and how can we best be true to that particular legacy. It turns out it was multiple legacies they gave us. We have to keep arguing about it. There are no Great British paintings of the American Revolution. There are paintings of victories against the french and the caribbean and the defense during the same timeframe of the mainly in the war in america. I want to thank alan there is can be a reception which i would encourage you all to attend i would also like you to let alan lead first so he can sign books for anyone who would be interested in purchasing a copy they are available upstairs on the balcony but please join me as he leaves the centerstage [applause]. Okay. Lets get started im a search professor here at the center for International Science and Technology Policy at George Washington university which is where you are now. I want to welcome you on behalf of our center and the center for science and democracy they are cosponsoring this event together with George Washington university. Our speaker here is an awardwinning science advocate. He is a man of many talents he is quite an impressive guy. R and a writer, a teacher in the speaker and he is the cofounder of science debate for which he received the usa National DistinguishedPublic Service award. He is a novelist and a filmmaker. His novel sins of our father which is a literary thriller was a finalist in the la times book a price in his film the house of sand and fog which is something i saw several years ago it was a terrific film. Thatt i would suggest that if yourr chance you view it and rented it was nominated for three Academy Awards it starts jennifer for conley. And cowrote the screenplay for it. His latest book is the one that you see displayed up here outside on the table called the war on science and that is what he is talking about today. Sean lives in minnesota he has an environmental house solar and wind powered. As i said hes a very interesting guy. The way we will do this sean is going to do a Powerpoint Presentation then he and i can have a conversation that we will open it up to q a and after that we will have some time to mingle and enjoy the refreshments that are left without further taking away from his time [applause]. Thank you everyone for coming. She let me know if shes not sure if shes can make it due to the voting schedule and congress today. We will see if she will bebe able to join us for the conversation as well. So as al mentioned i was involved in an Organization Called science debate. Org which is still around and i encourage you to sign on if you have not as a supporter of the science debate. Its basically a nonprofit to get the candidates for president primarily but other Public Offices in the United States to talk about the big science and Technology Health and Environmental Issues that face all of us. This is an issue that is only going to grow in importance as we move forward in time. What i had tried to focus on throughout the course of this we are able to do with the science and our ability to think of him and talk about in the Public Policy process. Essentially that is what the war on science started out and it grew out grew out of that effort the book is really an observation if you care about justice its an effort to defend democracy for a rise in authoritative there is a panel of questions there. There is a war on science right now. The politicians by the way are not causing the work and for reasons i will explain in a little bit its not partisan here but they are certainly participating in it. Went to have the vaccine and came back week a week later got a tremendous fever. Now is artistic. Over the course of the last 20 years have become completely acceptable in American Public dialogue. When i was a kid for instance it would not had been tolerated. Someone made a statement that was flew in the face from what we know it would be the end of their political career that doesnt happen anymore. Ation of it leads us to a curious examination of what is going on in american politics and my that could be. What has changed it to make it possible. It is is not just happening on the right although many seem to think it is. Its also happening on the left and i will show you some examples of that Bernie Sanders has the most aggressive climate plan of all of the candidates for president and embrace and supported by climate scientist. At the same time he is against Nuclear Power he supports alternative medicine and his four gml labor early which have nuances and elements of them that are not anti science but that are informed by a lot of anti science belief. This isnt just happened president ial races but also in inngress. Consider the chairman of the house subcommittee. As he is participating in thispa hearing on Climate Change. The earth will end only when god declares it time to be over. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. I appreciate having the panelist here who are men of faith and we can get into the theological discourse of that position but i do believe gods word is infallible unchanging perfect to other issues today we head about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon Start Playing it. The question is why in a Committee Hearing where we are discussing matters of national and part presumably talking about evidence is he waving a bible to begin with. By the go to ideology instead of evidence. Why is that an authority in this particular case . I dont recall the part about carbon in the bible. This is all happening in state legislatures across the country. Is a rather famous example this is essentially a move again and the claimant war but its a problem because it was more reminiscent of china than the United States where local officials have to go to state legislature and the Central Government in order to get approval and use the numbers that they provided when making zoning decisions and Development Close to the ocean. This is also happening in city governments. The snowmass last summer and the use of fluoride. They consider it one of the greatest Public Health advances of the 20th century. Its not just in the United States though. Anti science like this believes are completely contradicted by the evidence is spreading worldwide. Canada during the Harper Administration who pattered a lot of their policies on some of the bush blessed ministration policies by limited what scientist could say in their interactions with the press and placing appointees over them and closing libraries and Scientific Enterprises engendered a demonstration on their capitol hill talking about no science, no evidence no truth. It was a mock funeral for democracy and science. But this also has happened it in australia where cities are representing about half a Million People and they have recently banned fluoride in france. The United Kingdom also has a Research Problem with the anti vaccine movement. Where there is a research and teaching of creationism in science classes. Ireland also been fluoride. The Health Minister who does not have a background in science recently banned fluoride for the entire country. Nigeria where of course groups is varies name means western knowledge is forbidden. A reacting and there version of a right wing reaction against science. On the same time a movement against genetically modified crops. Why is the spreading particularly why is it spreading throughout western democracy which have been associated with science with individual rights and all of those things that seem to have been associated with scienceng there is something happening that is quite odd here and that is what this exploration tries to get at. The best place to start is really understanding why it matters. Science as i said a moment ago is really the great equalizer thats the one thing that stands between two brothers with as much power as these two brothers had and twohe brothers that had as much as these head. In theory these two sets of brothers in the United States t should have the same access to justice the same access to potentially to education or to employment at least devoting. And science is the one equalizer that neutralizes the vast size of the brothers. Anna provides the opportunity to the brothers on the right this is based in some core ideas that date back to the very founding of the unitedk states Thomas Jefferson said wherever the people are will informed they can be trusted with their own government and there is really the grasp of some of the problems we are running into. If youve ever been to the library of congress you will have seen Thomas Jefferson library which has been recreated there. Re it creek contains the knowledge. He have read all of those books and he contained that in his mind. Sort of like Francis Bacon was. And that was a possible idea back then. The will informed voter. What happens now. When science has continued to advance and is not at all possible for one person to know even a fraction of all ofee there is to know. How do we have will informed voters that are able to govern themselves successfully. That was the rug we were bumping up again. In order to come up with this idea for democracy to convince other in late meant. They reached for the greatest thinking of what they calledthat inventor at the time of physics who said a man may imagine things that are false but he can only understand things that are true. This is part of where we are getting into trouble today. If you take about your cell phone and turn it over. It is hard to have knowhow. When science and technology had been so complex. Its difficult for the average person to break them down. This no longer true with cell phones. At the moment that cell phones which are made by people wearing that. At the moment that it becomes indistinguishable from magic we become vulnerable science by its very nature must become a function of belief. What do you believe in. They believe in journals. But, even those are vulnerable as we have seen lately from certain journals for hire. The next turn to Francis Bacon. The attorney general who sought to circumscribe the power of the king of the monarch and he worked very hard to build a lot of the core ideas that jefferson relied on he said what a man have rather did. Is one of the reasons why he worked hard to create this. And other muslim scholars. Ervati they saw that as a way to to guard against it. To see what we want in the environment. E see what nature has a say about it. Confirm your observations there. And then jefferson turned to a man that conservatives really appreciate these days. The side from his conservative standards was seeking to solve a problem. Had broken down im and arguing with one another ever who have the true path to god. What is knowledge but faith or opinion. We have it to and to put them together and as for. There is no arguing with it. The next up other independent fall at different rates. It has in fact. I felt that up from intuitive knowledge did an experiment in his third was sensitive knowledge. I smell arose, i look around but i might be deceived so sensitive knowledge and common sense was a least reliable form of knowledge. The kind that most often deceived us. Anyone can argue about it. Now that science has begun to break down in society. To guard against that. Every argument should be argued in a way that was similar to a mathematical theorem. Thats what jefferson really sought to do in writing this because his life really hung on it. It led to the core functioning idea that informed the unitedd states. And no pope and no monarch has any more authority than we do ourselves. Pport its a new form of government called democracy. Without science the United States would not had been here. Our whole system is dependent on this kind of thinking. This kind of thinking is not intuitive. Its difficult. Here is an early draft. You will notice that the top of the second paragraph he wrote that doesnt sound quite right does it. What he was doing there was he fell into a mistake of thinking and it appealed to the divine we hold these truths to be sicker the moment he did that he opened the United States up. He opened it