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 ignoring it where we feel threatened - again, because we are not wise enough to do so. Except by sealing the brain off into separate air-tight compartments, how is it possible to fly in airplanes, listen to the radio or take antibiotics while holding that the Earth is around 10,000 years old or that all Sagittarians are gregarious and affable? Have I ever heard a sceptic wax superior and contemptuous? Certainly. I've even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tone in my own voice. There are human imperfections on both sides of this issue. Even when it's applied sensitively, scientific scepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic, heartless and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others. And, it must be said, some scientists and dedicated sceptics apply this tool as a blunt instrument, with little finesse. Sometimes it looks as if the sceptical conclusion came first, that contentions were dismissed before, not after, the evidence was examined. All of us cherish our beliefs. They are, to a degree, self-defining. When someone comes along who challenges our belief system as insufficiently well based - or who, like Socrates, merely asks embarrassing questions that we haven't thought of, or demonstrates that we've swept key underlying assumptions under the rug - it becomes much more than a search for knowledge. It feels like a personal assault. The scientist who first proposed to consecrate doubt as a prime virtue of the inquiring mind made it clear that it was a tool and not an end in itself. Rene Descartes wrote, I did not imitate the sceptics who doubt only for doubting's sake, and pretend to be always undecided; on the contrary, my whole intention was to arrive at a certainty, and to dig away the drift and the sand until I reached the rock or the clay beneath. In the way that scepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the sceptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what 280

The Marriage of Scepticism and Wonder our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped. Clearly there are limits to the uses of scepticism. There is some cost-benefit analysis which must be applied, and if the comfort, consolation and hope delivered by mysticism and superstition is high, and the dangers of belief comparatively low, should we not keep our misgivings to ourselves? But the issue is tricky. Imagine that you enter a big-city taxicab and the moment you get settled in the driver begins a harangue about the supposed iniquities and inferiorities of another ethnic group. Is your best course to keep quiet, bearing in mind that silence conveys assent? Or is it your moral responsibility to argue with him, to express outrage, even to leave the cab - because you know that every silent assent will encourage him next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice? Likewise, if we offer too much silent assent about mysticism and superstition - even when it seems to be doing a little good - we abet a general climate in which scepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal is an organization of scientists, academics, magicians and others dedicated to sceptical scrutiny of emerging or fullblown pseudosciences. It was founded by the University of Buffalo philosopher Paul Kurtz in 1976. I've been affiliated with it since its beginning. Its acronym, CSICOP, is pronounced 'sci-cop' - as if it's an organization of scientists performing a police function. Those wounded by CSICOP's analyses sometimes make just such a complaint: it's hostile to every new idea, they say, will go to absurd lengths in its knee-jerk debunking, is a vigilante organization, a New Inquisition, and so on. CSICOP is imperfect. In certain cases such a critique is to some degree justified. But from my point of view CSICOP serves an important social function as a well-known organization to which media can apply when they wish to hear the other side of the 281

THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD<br />

ignoring it where we feel threatened - again, because we are not<br />

wise enough to do so.<br />

Except by sealing the brain off into separate air-tight compartments,<br />

how is it possible to fly in airplanes, listen to the radio or<br />

take antibiotics while holding that the Earth is around 10,000<br />

years old or that all Sagittarians are gregarious and affable?<br />

Have I ever heard a sceptic wax superior and contemptuous?<br />

Certainly. I've even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay,<br />

that unpleasant tone in my own voice. There are human imperfections<br />

on both sides of this issue. Even when it's applied sensitively,<br />

scientific scepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic,<br />

heartless and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of<br />

others. And, it must be said, some scientists and dedicated<br />

sceptics apply this tool as a blunt instrument, with little finesse.<br />

Sometimes it looks as if the sceptical conclusion came first, that<br />

contentions were dismissed before, not after, the evidence was<br />

examined. All of us cherish our beliefs. They are, to a degree,<br />

self-defining. When someone comes along who challenges our<br />

belief system as insufficiently well based - or who, like Socrates,<br />

merely asks embarrassing questions that we haven't thought of, or<br />

demonstrates that we've swept key underlying assumptions under<br />

the rug - it becomes much more than a search for knowledge. It<br />

feels like a personal assault.<br />

The scientist who first proposed to consecrate doubt as a prime<br />

virtue of the inquiring mind made it clear that it was a tool and not<br />

an end in itself. Rene Descartes wrote,<br />

I did not imitate the sceptics who doubt only for doubting's<br />

sake, and pretend to be always undecided; on the contrary,<br />

my whole intention was to arrive at a certainty, and to dig<br />

away the drift and the sand until I reached the rock or the clay<br />

beneath.<br />

In the way that scepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public<br />

concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore<br />

the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and<br />

pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the<br />

sceptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what<br />

280

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!