Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World

Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World

giancarlo3000
from giancarlo3000 More from this publisher
04.10.2012 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!