Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
I thought this Carl Sagan interview would be a good follow-up to “Cosmos” Host Neil deGrasse Tyson Speaks Out about the News Media, Flat Earthers, Science Deniers, Climate Change Skeptics, Religion, and Dogma–which I posted earlier today.
Charlie Rose talked with Carl Sagan on the Charlie Rose Show back in May of 1996. At that time, Sagan warned about the dangers of people being ignorant about science while living in a society that is based on science and technology. Sagan talked about the “combustible mix” of ignorance and power in our society that would—at some point—blow up in our faces. He questioned who’d run science and technology in a democracy if the people didn’t know anything about it. Sagan also noted that science is more than a body of knowledge. He said it was a way of thinking.
Mike Appleton, I you didn’t speak out of turn, you are correct. Giovanna my quote was from Sagan. My comment reflects my concern with the selective way science is being taught in some schools, giving literal credence to biblical events, like creation, that would be a big one. I don’t concern myself too much about what is taught in parochial schools, that’s their right, but I don’t want my tax dollars being wasted on pseudoscience in public schools. Also Giovanna my own degrees were obtained from a Jesuit university.
Elaine M..
…
Margulis subscribed to a weaker [Gaia theory] version, seeing the planet as an integrated self- regulating ecosystem. She was criticized for succumbing to what George Williams called the “God-is good” syndrome, as evidenced by her adoption of metaphors of symbiosis in nature. She was, in turn, an outspoken critic of mainstream evolutionary biologists for what she saw as a failure to adequately consider the importance of chemistry and microbiology in evolution.
…
================
We are addressing her philosophy there, not her landmark work in biology and microbiology that changed science.
Her philosophy you address brings up, among other things, a very old debate “what is life?” …
A debate that is still steeped in controversy (e.g. there is no scientific controversy that DNA, RNA, and the genes therein are NOT alive, yet many still don’t get it).
The young discipline of teleology studies the promiscuous nomenclature all too often used by scientists (e.g. “How Long Do Stars Live?”).
Dr. Margulis was correct to criticize evolutionary tenets that ignore the great bulk of the evolutionary time line, to focus on a tiny fraction of that time line:
(Putting A Face On Machine Mutation – 3). Chemistry studies the entire universe of atoms and molecules that make up chemicals.
Chemistry is the science concerning how atoms function –atoms that make up molecular machines (The New Paradigm: The Physical Universe Is Mostly Machine).
I think that eventually Dr. Margulis will once again be found to have been ahead of the curve.
Why Carl Sagan is Truly Irreplaceable
No one will ever match his talent as the “gatekeeper of scientific credibility”
By Joel Achenbach
Smithsonian Magazine
March 2014
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-carl-sagan-truly-irreplaceable-180949818/?no-ist
Excerpt:
We live in Carl Sagan’s universe–awesomely vast, deeply humbling. It’s a universe that, as Sagan reminded us again and again, isn’t about us. We’re a granular element. Our presence may even be ephemeral—a flash of luminescence in a great dark ocean. Or perhaps we are here to stay, somehow finding a way to transcend our worst instincts and ancient hatreds, and eventually become a galactic species. We could even find others out there, the inhabitants of distant, highly advanced civilizations—the Old Ones, as Sagan might put it.
No one has ever explained space, in all its bewildering glory, as well as Sagan did. He’s been gone now for nearly two decades, but people old enough to remember him will easily be able to summon his voice, his fondness for the word “billions” and his boyish enthusiasm for understanding the universe we’re so lucky to live in.
He led a feverish existence, with multiple careers tumbling over one another, as if he knew he wouldn’t live to an old age. Among other things, he served as an astronomy professor at Cornell, wrote more than a dozen books, worked on NASA robotic missions, edited the scientific journal Icarus and somehow found time to park himself, repeatedly, arguably compulsively, in front of TV cameras. He was the house astronomer, basically, on Johnny Carson’s “Tonight Show.” Then, in an astonishing burst of energy in his mid-40s, he co-created and hosted a 13-part PBS television series, “Cosmos.” It aired in the fall of 1980 and ultimately reached hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Sagan was the most famous scientist in America—the face of science itself.
Now “Cosmos” is back, thanks largely to Seth MacFarlane, creator of TV’s “Family Guy” and a space buff since he was a kid, and Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow. They’re collaborating on a new version premiering on the Fox Network on Sunday March 9. MacFarlane believes that much of what is on television, even on fact-based channels purporting to discuss science, is “fluff.” He says, “That is a symptom of the bizarre fear of science that’s taken hold.” The astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, serves as narrator this time, giving him a chance to make the case that he’s the Sagan of our generation. “‘Cosmos’ is more than Carl Sagan,” Tyson told me. “Our capacity to decode and interpret the cosmos is a gift of the method and tools of science. And that’s what’s being handed down from generation to generation. If I tried to fill his shoes I would just fail. But I can fill my own shoes really well.”
It’s an audacious move, trying to reinvent “Cosmos”; although the original series ran in a single fall season—and on public television!—it had an outsize cultural impact. It was the highest-rated series in PBS history until Ken Burns took on the Civil War a decade later. Druyan loves to tell the story of a porter at Union Station in Washington, D.C. who refused to let Sagan pay him for handling luggage, saying, “You gave me the universe.”
The revival of “Cosmos” roughly coincides with another Sagan milestone: The availability of all his papers at the Library of Congress, which bought the Sagan archive from Druyan with money from MacFarlane. (Officially it’s the Seth MacFarlane Collection of the Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan Archive.) The files arrived at the library loading dock in 798 boxes—Sagan, it seems, was a pack rat—and after 17 months of curatorial preparation the archive opened to researchers last November.
The Sagan archive gives us a close-up of the celebrity scientist’s frenetic existence and, more important, a documentary record of how Americans thought about science in the second half of the 20th century. We hear the voices of ordinary people in the constant stream of mail coming to Sagan’s office at Cornell. They saw Sagan as the gatekeeper of scientific credibility. They shared their big ideas and fringe theories. They told him about their dreams. They begged him to listen. They needed truth; he was the oracle.
The Sagan files remind us how exploratory the 1960s and ’70s were, how defiant of official wisdom and mainstream authority, and Sagan was in the middle of the intellectual foment. He was a nuanced referee. He knew UFOs weren’t alien spaceships, for example, but he didn’t want to silence the people who believed they were, and so he helped organize a big UFO symposium in 1969, letting all sides have their say.
Space itself seemed different then. When Sagan came of age, all things concerning space had a tail wind: There was no boundary on our outer-space aspirations. Through telescopes, robotic probes and Apollo astronauts, the universe was revealing itself at an explosive, fireworks-finale pace.
Things haven’t quite worked out as expected. “Space Age” is now an antiquated phrase. The United States can’t even launch astronauts at the moment. The universe continues to tantalize us, but the notion that we’re about to make contact with other civilizations seems increasingly like stoner talk.
The Navy’s Climate Change Admiral explains the threat to the U.S. Navy:
Dredd,
I remember Margulis being a proponent of the Gaia Hypothesis.
*****
Lynn Margulis 1938-2011 “Gaia Is A Tough Bitch”
http://www.edge.org/conversation/lynn-margulis1938-2011
Excerpt:
Margulis was also a champion of the Gaia hypothesis, an idea developed in the 1970s by the free lance British atmospheric chemist James E. Lovelock. The Gaia hypothesis states that the atmosphere and surface sediments of the planet Earth form a self- regulating physiological system — Earth’s surface is alive. The strong version of the hypothesis, which has been widely criticized by the biological establishment, holds that the earth itself is a self-regulating organism; Margulis subscribed to a weaker version, seeing the planet as an integrated self- regulating ecosystem. She was criticized for succumbing to what George Williams called the “God-is good” syndrome, as evidenced by her adoption of metaphors of symbiosis in nature. She was, in turn, an outspoken critic of mainstream evolutionary biologists for what she saw as a failure to adequately consider the importance of chemistry and microbiology in evolution.
A three-part video of Dr. Lynn Margulis, once Sagan’s wife, explains how her “pseudo science” eventually displaced wrong establishment scientific theory (What Is Pseudo Science?, video at bottom of post).
Giovanna,
Here’s an excerpt from my post about Neil deGrasse Tyson:
Recently, Tyson spoke about the new version of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Tyson said that science and religion should not be painted as being “diametrically opposed to each other.” He said there were many scientists who believe in God. He added, “The issue there is not religion versus non-religion or religion versus science, the issue there is ideas that are different versus dogma.”
Sagan was married to Dr. Lynn Margulis while she had a hypothesis that was considered heretical:
(Wikipedia). I suspect that all the rejection of her science caused friction between her and her husband Carl Sagan.
He divorced her.
Science is not always easy.
Giovanna De Law Paz:
I do not believe that annieofwi is saying what you think she’s saying. As someone who was educated by Jesuits, I understand the intellectual tradition that has produced outstanding Catholic scientists through the centuries. However, what we are currently facing in this country is a strongly anti-intellectual movement driven largely by a form of primitive Christian fundamentalism that rejects any branch of scholarship that offends its views on biblical inerrancy. Bad theology produces bad science.
And annieofwi, if I’ve spoken out of turn, I apologize.
Anneofwi–many religious people have been scientist and have continued to be devout and faithful people. For example, there are hundreds of Catholic priest who have made wonderful scientific discoveries–
* George Lemaitre, father of the Big Bang Theory
* Guiseppe Piazzi discovered Ceres, the largest member of asteroid belt. He also helped identify many stars.
* Gregor Mendel, geneticist
* Roger Bacon discovered optics
*Bartholomeus Amicus, mathematician and astronomer
*Gyula Fenyi was an astronomer, made observations of the sun and discovered the “Fenyi” crater on the moon.
*Eugenio Barsanti invented the combustable engine.
*Jonathan Wright, pendulum, barometer, telescope and microscope.
* Francesco Grimaldi, discovered the diffraction of light (indeed coined the term “diffraction”), investigated the free fall of objects, and built and used instruments to measure geological features on the moon.
Giovanni Battista Riccoli, astronomer who authored Almagestum novum, an influential encyclopedia of astronomy; The first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body; created a selenograph with Father Grimaldi that now adorns the entrance at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C.
ALL THESE MEN WERE PRIESTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. This is only a sampling of the hundreds of clerics that were and are also scientists. The church and religion didn’t stifle their interest in science. Research it out for yourself.
When I hear scientists try to say religion is fake, counterfeit, untrue and keeps them from doing their job, I know there is an underlying reason why they are saying that religion is undermining their work and progress. It’s called ETHICS AND MORALS!
Giovanna De La Paz wrote: “The church and religion didn’t stifle their interest in science.”
Exactly. Isn’t it strange how people who claim there is no conflict between science and religion are always the ones who point out indirectly a conflict. Religion has never had a problem with science, but science has had a big problem with religion since the Enlightenment Age.
Carl Sagan was right when he said science is not a body of knowledge but a way of thinking. However, he fell short when he simply attempted to define that way of thinking as being the skeptical mind. What is implied in that “skeptical mind” is skepticism toward knowledge that might come through the spirit or through revelation. The way of thinking in science is to define God out of ALL theories. The underlying research paradigm is that EVERYTHING can be explained without reference to a Creator. This is a matter of the definition of science. It is why science censors creationist theories, not because there is no way to interpret the empirical evidence that way, but because by definition they reject any theistic notions whatsoever. Then they wonder why so many can’t just jump on board with them. Most scientists have this underlying doctrine and dogma that guides everything in regards to big theories concerning origins.
In this video Elaine shared, Carl Sagan jumped right into it when he misdefined faith. He said faith was believing without evidence. That is not how most religions define faith. Faith is a conviction of a reality based upon internal evidence. The problem is that since the Enlightenment, a segment of society has rejected revelation, They have rejected the idea that one’s spirit or soul is a source of knowledge and truth. All evidence for pure scientists is empirical evidence, so they can’t even communicate anymore with people who have not jumped aboard with their anti-theistic worldview. When Charlie Rose pointed out the obvious divide this creates with religion, then Carl Sagan says, no, no, no, and allows religion into the realm of literature, poetry, and morals. How generous of him. The problem is that this is simply a deception. Religion has always been involved in science. Until some Enlightenment scientists wake up from their blindness and stop trying to have a monopoly on their path to truth, the divide will always continue because scientists keep pushing the deception that their paradigm is not anti-Creator when in fact it is.
1. There is a difference between belief in a creator and belief in creationism.
2. Religion is not necessary as a bulwark against the potential excesses of science, but rational moral thinking is.
Mike Appleton wrote: “1. There is a difference between belief in a creator and belief in creationism.”
What difference do you have in mind? Belief in a Creator means there is a belief that he created… hence, a belief in creationism. Unless you take a narrow definition of creationism to mean some theory of origin founded in the Bible instead of creationism based upon empirical evidence of a Creator.
News Flash! Science is not dead, there have been many scientist before Sagan, and Tyson, with many more to come. There are many bright intelligent young people out there who are attracted to various sciences.
Sagan is right, religion is faith based with emphasis on morals, ethics, and compassion. Without religion this world would be in a worse mess than it is now. Religion is the glue that tries to keep us on the right path. For example, if Christian’s weren’t watchful and skeptical of some of the research going on, scientist would be sacrificing us and each other for their own selfish and greedy benefits.
Remember, people like Sagan, Tyson and others, don’t like skeptical remarks from religions, because they feel it holds them back from the freedom’s they want in science, no matter the cost to humanity. In their minds everything they come up with is good for us–but it isn’t always the best result for humanity. Religion doesn’t undermine science, it’s purpose is to bring and keep moral and ethical order in science and the world.
Scientist want to convince us that everything they do is in the best interest of society, but good sense and reasoning have shown that not to be true all the time. They don’t like being told what to do and what is wrong to do. The fact of the matter is that they want complete liberty to get and keep the almighty dollar–and they’re out to convince everyone how genuine and wonderful they are.
Sagan said he didn’t believe his psychology friend, John Mack, who believed in UFO’s and aliens, yet many astronomers and other scientist do. He insists that science is true and factual where religion and belief in a creator is bogus. But consider the fact that scientist have never seen an alien, but move on faith that what some people said they saw is true.
In fact, the U.S. and other countries have thousands of satellite’s around the world listening for alien’s–even though they’ve never seen or heard one. These satellites, computers, and the extensive man power has cost the taxpayer billions of dollars over the last 50 or more years. I find it amusing that scientists can put their faith in life from another planet, but refuse to believe that a supreme being created the earth. They have their faith and I have mine.
Davidm
Darwin was pre Jeffersonian philosophy?
I knever knew.
Max-1 wrote: “Darwin was pre Jeffersonian philosophy?”
No. I have no idea why you would address this to me. I was talking about Jefferson being a Creationist. Creationism existed thousands of years before Darwinism.
I saw Sagan’s Cosmos as a kid and it changed my life. Never before has someone been able to clearly impart the sheer wonder of the universe around us. I’m glad there are folks out there like Neil deGrasse Tyson still trying to carry the torch of popularizing science, but Carl really was one of a kind. I wear my Carl shirt first after a wash every time: http://hirsutehistory.com/design/carl_sagan/
Some humorous irony in how Sagan praises a creationist like Jefferson for paving the way for modern scientists to deny the existence of a Creator.
“Though it is very important for man as an individual that his religion should be true, that is not the case for society. Society has nothing to fear or hope from another life; what is most important for it is not that all citizens profess the true religion but that they should profess religion.”
— Alexis de Tocqueville
What some viewers saw on the new Cosmos…
… Evolution was missing. Thanks FOX.
Science is the one true religion, if you want to know God, look up at what God wrote not down in some stupid book, God did not write any book God wrote The Universe..!
Where other countries move toward their students excelling in the sciences, our country seems to be more concerned with injecting religious beliefs into our kid’s science education. Other countries surge forward, while we get pulled backwards.
“Where religion gets into trouble is when they pretend to know about science”.