c . good evening from los angeles. i'm tavis mile smiley. the strum administration has prompted new civic engagement and street level engagement. we have seen the massive women's march and the immigration ban. tonight the theoretical fisist lawrence krauss joins us to talk about the march and his new book, "the greatest story ever told - so far," why are we here. then we will shift gears and speak with actor, director and writer dax shepard about his reboot of the cop drama "chips." we are glad you joined us. all of that in just a moment. ♪ ♪

♪ and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. ♪ >> thank you. ♪ ♪ theoretical physicist lawrence krauss spent his life discovering the outer reaches of the cosmos and the tiniest particles perceived. he has written nine books. latest text is titled "the greatest story ever told - so far", why are we here? professor krauss, good to have you back on the program.

>> great to be back with you. >> let me start by talking about the mari referenced a while ago. i'm not surprised there will be a march for science. >> yes. >> tell me more about it. >> i think the idea is people are -- i hope the idea is people are really concerned about the fact that this administration, as some administrations have done, they're not basing their public policy on empirical reality. it is really important if we're going to have sound public policy that helps this country that we base it on reality, like climate change for example. and so there's a -- scientists in particular are concerned about attacks on science by this administration. the fact people in this administration from vice president who expressed a disbelief in evolution to obviously the heads of the environmental protection agency are deny tinge results of science. it is not as if we want scientist toss make public policy or even i think are demanding more dollars for science. it is just we want science and scientific advice to be used stow we can make the country better. it is simple. >> i think people are entitled

to their opinions, but i hear your point about the facts. >> yes, facts. >> and this is not -- this is not the first administration to show a particular kind of indifference to science. but what has made this one so acute, the attack by this administration so acute? >> i think the fact that this administration has overtly acknowledged that they base their results on alternative facts. i mean reality is reality. a science fiction writer once said reality is that which continues to exist even when you stop believing it. i think, you know, if you base your decisions on what you want -- how you want the world to be, you're going to end up getting bit en. your reality is going to come back and affect you, and it is going to affect the health and safety and livelihoods of people in this country. and that's why i'm critically concerned, but i think that's more important than, as i say, lobbying for scientific dollars which is really important, too. i'm as concerned by cuts in the budget to fundamental science as

i am to the cuts for nea, the national endowment for the hearts, national endowments for humanities and public broadcasting. >> is there a link, a parallel? >> sure. science is part of our culture. science makes technology and the world we're in possible, and it has helped us all live longer, but that's just a part of science. the thing that fascinates me about the greatest story, and science in general, is that it is like art, music, literature. what they all do is force us to reassess our place in the cosmos, to see ourselves in new ways. you know, when there's a physicist who was the head of one of the national laboratories years ago, he was asked by congress, well, that particle physicist laboratory aid in the defense of the nation, but he said, no, it will help keep the nation worth defending. to me it is all together. i'm so sad when i see budget cuts in all of the areas and you add up all of the money saved for that and more than that is made for the first down payment on the wall to mexico. we are defending ourselves from

unknown hords by getting rid of the things in our country that make us great, the culture and science together, and science should be a big part of our culture. that's one of the reasons i write books and lecture because these ideas are so fascinating, and if we think about all of the questions that you have asked and everyone asks, how did we get here, are we alone? we're all scientistness that sense, but somehow science has become divorced from many people from culture and it shouldn't be because the ideas are fascinating. you know what? you don't have to be a scientist to enjoy it. it really amazes me that people can enjoy music but they don't have dob eric clapton. they don't have to be picasso to enjoy art. science stuff, people say i don't understand it, sure, if you understand it you will get more understanding. >> one thing that's not being cut, to the contrary it is being expanded is defense budget. >> yes. >> being increased. i want to go back to this motion you raised a moment ago, lawrence, about what makes

america worth defending. assuming trump gets what he wants, which is an increase in defense budget, tell me more about this notion you are raising about what makes america in fact worth defending. >> well, i think our legacy, what makes america great and worth defending is the leg acy e leave for our children, the knowledge we develop, the society we create that empowers people to have a better quality of life in every way, and those things that people really appreciate are the fundamental aspects of our humanity, our culture, our music, our literature, and our science. the we look at -- and there's also practical aspect. it has been well-known if you look at the current gross national product of this country, half of it at least was generated by curiosity-driven research a generation ago. and so if we stop pushing the forefronts, 25 years down the line our kids will suffer economically. plus, if we stop letting in the best young people from around

the world who want to come study here, who later will create google or whatever else in the future, they empower our society. we have actually thrived by bringing in the best scientists and creative people in the world who want to come here to study in our graduate schools, and later on some stay and benefit our society, others go around the world and make their societies better. look at what happened to this country in science benefitted in some sense because in germany in the second world war many of the great scientists moved to the united states, they established us as a center of science. sure, there will be scientific progress made and that's fine, but from the point of view of the well-being of this country if we want to stay at the forefront, if we start excluding others and not funding the kind of research that excites people, they will go elsewhere. >> you used a word a moment ago i want to pick up on. >> sure. >> you used the word curiosity. this question might sound trite but i think you will get my point. i wonder whether or not you think this administration has a particular curiosity?

because when you think about j.f.k. for example -- and we're going to go to the moon and do this and that, there was a curiosity. so the question is whether or not you think this administration has a curiosity and i wonder at large whether or not you think the country is still as curious as we once were? does it make sense? >> no, it is a good question. i think we're finding there isn't. it is certainly clear mr. trump at least doesn't have much curiosity. he doesn't want to know how things are. he doesn't want to read, doesn't want to learn as far as i can see. there have been presidents before who have been that way as well, and i could name them but -- >> i think probably -- i think we agree on this. part of what the other end of curiosity is finding the truth and it can be scary for people. >> it can be terrifying but it also can be exciting. that's the point. if we force our beliefs conform the evidence of reality, it is scary but life is scary. in fact, i have often said that science, one of the purposes of science is to make people uncomfortable. that may not sound good, but if we're always in our comfort zone we're never growing.

we are never expanding. again, the same is true for reading exciting books or literature. curiosity is something that we should encourage from a young age. i think one of the problems is we -- in our teaching system, we tend to teach science as if it is a bunch of facts and kids memorize it and it is boring. we should teaching kids to ask questions. the problem with this alternative facts world is that science is not just a bunch of facts. it is a process for deriving facts. if we teach kids who are asking questions, then the process of discovery is theirs. together we discover, and then it is exciting because everyone is a born scientists, everyone loves to play, to solve puzzles, and we sort of beat it out of kids. i think we need to start very early to overcome this willingness of people to accept invented truths. a curiosity driven administration is very important. i don't expect the president to know everything on any subject, but they should be curious and try to get the best people in the world to help inform them so

they can make the best decisions. that goes for whoever they are, whatever party they are. science is not just democratic or republican. it is unfortunate right now the republican party at least when it comes to climate change doesn't accept the science, but it doesn't have to be that way. >> so there's curiosity on one side and arrogance on the other side. we talked about the trump administration. let me ask you about, again, the question about the public at large. >> sure. >> you think we are as curious now as we were 50 years ago or are we getting closer to arrogance? >> well, i think -- i think when we want to close out the rest of the world, i think that's arrogance. because the rest of the world has a lot to offer to us, so i think it is more humble to realize we are a part of a partnership, a global partnership. a rising tide raises all ships, i think that's really important. whether people -- you know, people have been bemoaning scientific literacy for a long time. i don't know if it has gotten much worse, but it is of concern, for example, when we have a new secretary of education who doesn't seem very

curious about anything and, in fact, when it comes to certainly as far as her family is concerned, when it comes to issues of evolution, for example, as has been expressed doubts. i think what we want to do is if our leaders aren't role models in some sense, motivating people to move forward, we have a problem. i definitely think that that's one of the great aspects of science, is that it can show you how people around the world can work together. i mean the large collider which is the most complicated machine we bit, i talk about it in the book, mailed by 10,000 scientists over 20 years from many countries speaking many languages and different religions, working together. science is a global enterprise and the process of science can help us live a life that's more exciting and not one that's techno logically better but one -- you know, without curiosity what is the point? >> i agree. speaking of curiosity, to your

text, "the greatest story ever told - so far," one understands when woe reaone reads the text actually the title, that this story is changing and evolving as we sit here. tell me more. >> it gets better all the time. i was comparing it to another story that is called the better story, but the difference is this story gets better every day. every time we open the window on the university and make a discovery, the story changes. it is wonderful, and that's why it is a fascinating story because you can choose when you try to ask these questions whether you're going to say, well, i want the universe to be centered on me or i can just open my mind and let the universe surprise me. those surprises make the story great. they make it interesting. this is a story of -- there are twists and turns, and humanity and scientists, scientists are just people, surprisingly. that means -- that means -- >> i'll take your word for that. >> that means they're biassed and prejudiced and they have things they would like to be true, and you often see that's the case, but nature drags them that way. the process of science overcomes

the prejudices and biasses of the scientists themselves. when you read this story as i was -- when i was writing it, you see the scientists going this way and they had the solution to these deep problems, it is right there but they can't see it. they're moving in the wrong direction and you want to shake them and say, look. it is fascinating to see the process of science happen that way because too often we present science as sort of a fixed angle with a logical outcome, but the process is fascinating. the courage of people to ultimately change their minds and see that one of the results of this is an amazing result that the universe that we experience is largely an illusion. the surface reality is so different than the reality underneath, and of course for many people it is so esoteric they figure they're never going to get there. that's why i try in the book to start with playdoh to show people in baby steps by which we got there. if science can cut through the illusion of nature at its deepest scale, it can help us cut through the illusion we have on the daily tv or in politics. it is all tied together. the story is worth celebrating

because, as i say, it is -- as far as humanity is concerned, i can't think of a more thrilling intellectual ride than trying to discover why we're here. >> every story changes, every story has, to your point, launched twists and turns. i heard you say, i would assume deliberately and unapologetically, you believe the story gets better. why is it getting better as opposed to just changing? >> well, because we're getting uncomfortable, because we're -- the vast parts of the universe we're learning about are expanding. ten years ago i could never have written this book. right now we are able to sort of study the universe back to the earliest moments of the big bang. we discovered crazy things like the fact empty space is not empty. we discovered, as i talk about in the book, that there's an invisible field everywhere in the universe affecting our existence, that if the universe hadn't accidentally frozen in that configuration we wouldn't be here. to me those surprises make the story better. >> let me make you political, not that i need to because you

started out that way. >> oh, yeah. >> let me take you back to politics. what is it about the political right or whoever these persons may be in the country that don't want to accept what science is telling us, what's behind you think their reluctance about that? >> think two things. first there's fear. a lot of people are afraid science will confront their faith at some level, but i'm -- that saddens me because if you would prefer your kids not know, to not know how the world really works for fear it will confront your faith, what does that say about your faith? i mean i happen to think it is child abuse because you're hurting your kids' future in a world that will be -- where economic benefits will be governed by a technically literal populace. if you withhold evidence from them. at the same time, frankly, there's greed. i think that's the other thing, there's self-interest. if the results of science interfere with something you want to do for personal gain, as in the case of oil and gas industry, then it is in your interests to have people not know the truth. i think it is a combination of those two things.

and maybe to be less severe, just not an understanding of science. for example, one of the biggest misunderstandings of science i can think of is that scientific revolutions do everything with everything that went before them. therefore they think, everything we know is true today tomorrow will be wrong so why should i bother believing it or learning it. science doesn't work that way. what survives the test of experiment today always will be true. newton and the falling apple always will be true. whatever we learn about the earliest moments of the universe, if i let a ball go it will be described as newton's laws and what we learn at the forefront of science never will change that. the fundamental truths of science, if you wish, those things that survive the test of experiments always will be true. i think some people are willing to say, well, you know, science is a fad. there's no such thing as objective reality, so let me follow where i want to go. so you have a mixture of that sort of new age view combined with fear combined with self-interest. >> yeah. i am a person of faith. you are not, and yet what i have

learned over the years is faith and science can coexist. >> they better. >> the two don't have to be -- >> well, if they don't -- >> in opposition to each other. >> well, they shouldn't because the world -- the real world is out there, and if they don't coexist it is bad news. as i say, you know, you may not believe the big bang happened, but it happened whether you believe it or not. >> "the greatest story ever told - so far," why are we here is the new book lawrence m. krauss. thanks for your insights, my friend. >> it is great. >> my great honor. up next, actor/director dax shepard. stay with us. ♪ dax shepard is best known for his work on nbc's comedy "parenthood" and in feature films directed and costars in "chips." before we start our conversation now, a clip from "chips." ♪

>> are you sexting with karen? >> no, you i had yo. she is hand kacuffed to a poll. >> wait, wait, let's think about this. why are we going to risk our lives to save your ex-wife? >> you said my wife was someone else. you save someone when you can, that's what a person does, especially an officer of the law. >> you can't even ride. >> i have done back flips with worse injuries than this. >> we need backup. >> i don't know who in the department is in on it. we are like jay zee and beyoncé, ride or die. >> or ponch. >> this thing makes you laugh out loud, but i feel a little guilty laughing out loud. some of this stuff, it was just -- >> provocative stuff you're talking about? >> it was funny. i grew up watching "chips." >> yeah, well, it is not -- >> make it clear, you make it

abundantly clear -- >> it is not the "chips" from our childhood. >> that's what i was trying to say, this is not my daddy's. >> this is not your daddy's and granddaddy's "chips." i think when you take something to the big screen, you know, the example i use, although it sounds like i'm inadvertently comparing myself to nolan which i'm not, but as much as i love the adam west batman, so happy christopher nolan made an entirely different everything with "batman begins" with toneally, the darkness, all of that stuff. i think it is fun to have something you know very well, and then to see it put through the blender of someone else's brain, you know, which in this case was my blender. >> why this one? >> motorcycles. >> yeah, yeah. >> yeah. i'm a gear head. >> yeah. >> and i'm always looking for something that can, you know, hold both comedy and motorsports. >> yeah. >> and this was two heroes on motorcycle. >> when you go into this, you go into it with the mindset you completely want to upset the apple cart?

i mean how much of what was do you want to hold on to? other than the two motorcycles. >> well, let's start by saying you can only make a movie you want to see. i can't make a movie that you want to see, or hopefully those things will intersect but i can't set out to make a movie someone else wants to see because i have to write it and i have to direct it and all of that. i only have myself as a judge of what is funny. so by my estimation, the magic ingredient also of the show that made it a global phenomenon was motorcycles, california, john and ponch. those were the things if you were in germany you were like, what is this bizarre world? for me in detroit, palm trees and beaches and these guys ride motorcycles all year around, the odd couple, the whole thing felt foreign to me in detroit and i think it felt exotic to people around the world. so those were the three elements that to me had to be in the movie. >> you talked to your wife into doing this, or did she talk --

she talked herself into it? >> yes. previously i talked her into things, and in this case she talked herself into it. because the character, my ex-wife in the movie is just a terrible person and my wife is not a terrible person. she is a lovely, you know, innately on a cellular level likable person so i was reluctant to cast her to be a jerk, but she wanted to and she did a great job. it is weirdly more fun watching her be a jerk because you know, there's like a bit of -- >> i was a big fan of hers in cheat ow cheaters and the whole cast of live. she was good in that. >> she can do anything. it is infuriating. when i direct her, the next take i can say, sing it and she would sing it like a bird. this take, ball your eyes out. action, she can do it. you tell me -- like you can tell me between four and six, that's my zone that i'm good in. you can't tell me to sing, you

know, i'm not going to cry on cue. so, yeah, her talent is a little maddening. >> cast diverse? >> yes, very. >> i love that. >> that's another reason, by the way, again, people are offended that all of the characters aren't in it. people who the show is, you know, an institution for them, i totally understand it. but i didn't want to cast a bunch of white people. i wanted to cast latino love interests, a ton of black folks. i wanted a female, you know, officer in charge of all of us, a captain, a female captain. so because all of those, the race was going to change, the genders were going to change, then giving them the same name and maybe the same character type, to me i was like, i just -- that was trickier to me. >> yeah, i'm a feign an of jane kaczmarek, who was here a few weeks ago. >> she was? >> yeah. >> phenomenal. again, the commander in "chips"

was a man, was chris pines' father i believe, and so i wanted a female. you know, so on. >> why take the risk? i hear your point, dax, to do a movie that you want to see. >> yeah. >> but when you know there are millions of fans of this particular series, not just you, "21 jump street" it could be, "flint stones," "love boat" it could be. why take the risk when you know people are not going to get your vision? >> there's a couple of things. one, the people that are religious about it, sadly, aren't the movie-going audience. what drives the marketplace is 18 to 25 year olds. so that's the audience you have to cater to, if any audience. and then additionally, they're not going to green light a movie at warner brothers with me writing, directing, starring, that doesn't have the safety net of some known property. so i couldn't have gone in there and pitched them, the movie is called california motorcycle

cops, me and michael pinion, neither are movie stars, when do we start? they would be like, thank you for dropping by. love you, just can't do that. >> yeah, yeah. >> so i have a realistic assessment of what i can and cannot get made, and that means i'm going to have -- it is going to have to fit into something that's a little more bankable than me and michael panion, i wouldn't be sitting here if i pitched the california mete motorcycle movie, it had to be "chips." >> i tell you what was cool was the music in the closing credit, tupac. >> yeah, california love, that we sang along to. >> yes. >> in a less than perfect manner. >> yes. >> thanks for coming by. >> oh, man. thanks for having me. >> come do it again. i won't say give my love, but tell your wife -- >> you can say that. i'm very comfortable and confident with my wife's love.

>> tell your wife i said hello. >> i will do so. >> "chips," written, directed, costarring dax shepard. that's our show for tonight. thanks for watching, and as always keep the faith. ♪ for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. >> hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time with a conversation with grammy award winning singer and song writer michael bolton. that's next time. see you then. ♪ ♪ ♪

and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. ♪ thank you. ♪ ♪ -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com ♪ be more. pbs. be more, pbs. ♪

good evening from los angeles, i'm tavis smiley. another dramatic week in washington. president trump promised his healthcare would be beautiful and ter riff stick and gave tax break force the rich and now that it has failed, will opposition to trump be embold emboldened? will democrats now try to block the gorsuch nomination the supreme court. unpacking so much around the country to restrict further v e voting rights. glad you joined us, a conversation with berman coming up right now.