Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World
Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World
THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD incorruptible; a man of independence, loving frankness and truth'. It is the responsibility of those historians with integrity to try to reconstruct that actual sequence of events, however disappointing or alarming it may be. Historians learn to suppress their natural indignation about affronts to their nations and acknowledge, where appropriate, that their national leaders may have committed atrocious crimes. They may have to dodge outraged patriots as an occupational hazard. They recognize that accounts of events have passed through biased human filters, and that historians themselves have biases. Those who want to know what actually happened will become fully conversant with the views of historians in other, once adversary, nations. All that can be hoped for is a set of successive approximations: by slow steps, and through improving self-knowledge, our understanding of historical events improves. Something similar is true in science. We have biases; we breathe in the prevailing prejudices from our surroundings like everyone else. Scientists have on occasion given aid and comfort to a variety of noxious doctrines (including the supposed 'superiority' of one ethnic group or gender over another from measurements of brain size or skull bumps or IQ tests). Scientists are often reluctant to offend the rich and powerful. Occasionally, a few of them cheat and steal. Some worked - many without a trace of moral regret - for the Nazis. Scientists also exhibit biases connected with human chauvinisms and with our intellectual limitations. As I've discussed earlier, scientists are also responsible for deadly technologies - sometimes inventing them on purpose, sometimes being insufficiently cautious about unintended side-effects. But it is also scientists who, in most such cases, have blown the whistle alerting us to the danger. Scientists make mistakes. Accordingly, it is the job of the scientist to recognize our weakness, to examine the widest range of opinions, to be ruthlessly self-critical. Science is a collective enterprise with the error-correction machinery often running smoothly. It has an overwhelming advantage over history, because in science we can do experiments. If you are unsure of the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Paris in 1814-15, replaying the events is an unavailable option. You can only dig into old 242
Antiscience records. You cannot even ask questions of the participants. Every one of them is dead. But for many questions in science, you can rerun the event as many times as you like, examine it in new ways, test a wide range of alternative hypotheses. When new tools are devised, you can perform the experiment again and see what emerges from your improved sensitivity. In those historical sciences where you cannot arrange a rerun, you can examine related cases and begin to recognize their common components. We can't make stars explode at our convenience, nor can we repeatedly evolve through many trials a mammal from its ancestors. But we can simulate some of the physics of supernova explosions in the laboratory, and we can compare in staggering detail the genetic instructions of mammals and reptiles. The claim is also sometimes made that science is as arbitrary or irrational as all other claims to knowledge, or that reason itself is an illusion. The American revolutionary, Ethan Allen - leader of the Green Mountain Boys in their capture of Fort Ticonderoga - had some words on this subject: Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument. The reader can judge the depth of this argument. Anyone who witnesses the advance of science first-hand sees an intensely personal undertaking. There are always a few - driven by simple wonder and great integrity, or by frustration with the inadequacies of existing knowledge, or simply upset with themselves for their imagined inability to understand what everyone else can - who proceed to ask the devastating key questions. A few saintly personalities stand out amidst a roiling sea of jealousies, ambition, backbiting, suppression of dissent, and absurd conceits. In some fields, 243
- Page 203 and 204: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection b
- Page 205 and 206: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection f
- Page 207 and 208: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection w
- Page 209 and 210: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection w
- Page 211 and 212: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection m
- Page 213 and 214: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection e
- Page 215 and 216: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection w
- Page 217 and 218: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection i
- Page 219 and 220: 13 Obsessed with Reality A shipowne
- Page 221 and 222: Obsessed with Reality eating the gr
- Page 223 and 224: Obsessed with Reality stranger thin
- Page 225 and 226: Obsessed with Reality homes in Amer
- Page 227 and 228: Obsessed with Reality you put a rub
- Page 229 and 230: Obsessed with Reality 'miraculous'
- Page 231 and 232: Obsessed with Reality and epilepsy.
- Page 233 and 234: Obsessed with Reality about one in
- Page 235 and 236: Obsessed with Reality explain the f
- Page 237 and 238: Obsessed with Reality newspaper cha
- Page 239 and 240: Obsessed with Reality been describe
- Page 241 and 242: Obsessed with Reality they were cur
- Page 243 and 244: Obsessed with Reality argued, but t
- Page 245 and 246: Obsessed with Reality It is also a
- Page 247 and 248: Antiscience comeuppance. Science en
- Page 249 and 250: Antiscience appreciate humour in so
- Page 251 and 252: Antiscience obviously an important
- Page 253: Antiscience Russian stooges; Belgia
- Page 257 and 258: Antiscience demythologizing the pro
- Page 259 and 260: Antiscience ideas; but it has littl
- Page 261 and 262: Antiscience cut-throat practices by
- Page 263 and 264: Antiscience courage. In The Vavilov
- Page 265 and 266: 15 Newton's Sleep May God keep us f
- Page 267 and 268: Newton's Sleep wishes, is this the
- Page 269 and 270: Newton's Sleep it is the inalterabl
- Page 271 and 272: Newton's Sleep What intelligible ac
- Page 273 and 274: Newton's Sleep Nature. Otherwise we
- Page 275 and 276: Newton's Sleep It's been a long tim
- Page 277 and 278: Newton's Sleep past errors, as the
- Page 279 and 280: 16 When Scientists Know Sin The min
- Page 281 and 282: When Scientists Know Sin Hungarian-
- Page 283 and 284: When Scientists Know Sin The global
- Page 285 and 286: When Scientists Know Sin for the ci
- Page 287 and 288: When Scientists Know Sin obscure gr
- Page 289 and 290: 17 The Marriage of Scepticism and W
- Page 291 and 292: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 293 and 294: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 295 and 296: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 297 and 298: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 299 and 300: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 301 and 302: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 303 and 304: The Wind Makes Dust physics class.
Antiscience<br />
records. You cannot even ask questions of the participants. Every<br />
one of them is dead.<br />
But for many questions in science, you can rerun the event as<br />
many times as you like, examine it in new ways, test a wide range<br />
of alternative hypotheses. When new tools are devised, you can<br />
perform the experiment again and see what emerges from your<br />
improved sensitivity. In those historical sciences where you cannot<br />
arrange a rerun, you can examine related cases and begin to<br />
recognize their common components. We can't make stars<br />
explode at our convenience, nor can we repeatedly evolve through<br />
many trials a mammal from its ancestors. But we can simulate<br />
some of the physics of supernova explosions in the laboratory, and<br />
we can compare in staggering detail the genetic instructions of<br />
mammals and reptiles.<br />
The claim is also sometimes made that science is as arbitrary or<br />
irrational as all other claims to knowledge, or that reason itself is<br />
an illusion. The American revolutionary, Ethan Allen - leader of<br />
the Green Mountain Boys in their capture of Fort Ticonderoga -<br />
had some words on this subject:<br />
Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider<br />
whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if<br />
with reason, then they establish the principle that they are<br />
laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason<br />
(which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must<br />
do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they<br />
deserve a rational argument.<br />
The reader can judge the depth of this argument.<br />
Anyone who witnesses the advance of science first-hand sees an<br />
intensely personal undertaking. There are always a few - driven by<br />
simple wonder and great integrity, or by frustration with the inadequacies<br />
of existing knowledge, or simply upset with themselves for<br />
their imagined inability to understand what everyone else can - who<br />
proceed to ask the devastating key questions. A few saintly personalities<br />
stand out amidst a roiling sea of jealousies, ambition, backbiting,<br />
suppression of dissent, and absurd conceits. In some fields,<br />
243