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 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
- 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 and 254: Antiscience Russian stooges; Belgia
- Page 255 and 256: Antiscience records. You cannot eve
- 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: 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.
- Page 305 and 306: The Wind Makes Dust theologians are
- Page 307 and 308: The Wind Makes Dust This more or le
- Page 309 and 310: The Wind Makes Dust of an eland hoo
- Page 311 and 312: The Wind Makes Dust mode of explana
- Page 313 and 314: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question wh
- Page 315 and 316: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question wh
- Page 317 and 318: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question Go
- Page 319 and 320: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question wo
- Page 321 and 322: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question un
- Page 323 and 324: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question at
- Page 325 and 326: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question fo
- Page 327 and 328: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question en
- Page 329 and 330: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question Sc
- Page 331 and 332: House on Fire There, in this burnin
- Page 333 and 334: House on Fire • Around 33 hours f
- Page 335 and 336: House on Fire • The teachers and
- Page 337 and 338: House on Fire about the football te
- Page 339 and 340: House on Fire little we rely on our
- Page 341 and 342: House on Fire Smithsonian's Nationa
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