Who's afraid of Carl Sagan?
Last updated August 18.
` By gum I've been busy: Finals are growing closer and yet I have been spending almost all of my waking moments hydrating and grooming my unwell kitten (and protecting her from my well kitten). [Note: She has recovered by now.]
` Since it's about time I updated again, I thought I would present for you some musings related to the philosophy of science. This time it has to do with a book by the late Carl Sagan called The Demon Haunted World, which I'm reading at the moment. (Or trying to!)
` A while back, I was looking at some reader reviews on Amazon.com about this book, and I noted that most of them were overall positive - even glowing - though there were a few which back up the general observation that his message does not seem to reach those who feel it threatens their very identity.
` So what is his message, and why? The beauty here is that I don't really have to say much because the reviewers have already done such a good job of that. (Thanks, everyone, my brain needed the rest!)
` I think William H. Fuller put the 'what' and the 'why' rather succinctly:
Sagan's definition of the scientific method of thought is marvelous. Such thought must be totally open, allowing all ideas to enter for consideration, denying admission to none.` I second that. As Sagan points out, much of our lives (including economy, medicine, transportation, environmental protection, even entertainment) rely on science, and yet not very many presidents of the United States have even had a very good grasp of what that is.
However, once those ideas have entered, they must be subjected to the utmost skepticism, for only those that can withstand the examination of the skeptic, the doubter, the unbeliever, may be accepted into residency, and even that is not guaranteed for perpetuity, for, as new facts are discovered, what was once held to be true may no longer be so.
Do we need yet more justification to read Sagan's book? May I offer a few statistics from page 324?
"Sixty-three percent of American adults are unaware that the last dinosaur died before the first human arose; 75 percent do not know that antibiotics kill bacteria but not viruses; 57 percent do not know that `electrons are smaller than atoms.' Polls show that something like half of American adults do not know that the Earth goes around the Sun and takes a year to do it. I can find ... students who do not know that the ... Sun is a star."
You know, many years ago, I was asked by one of my own students if I was "prejudiced," and I shocked the entire classroom when I answered, "Yes." I went on to explain that my prejudice was not against a race or a gender but against refusal to learn, against the illusive comfort of ignorance.
Judging by the statistics quoted by Sagan, I still have a lot in this country to be prejudiced against. Do these statistics support Sagan's argument for better scientific education in America? Personally, I'd say that they do.
` So who are these people who fear the scientific method so much? As far as I know, they are generally people who believe they know what the scientific method is despite the fact that they actually don't (at least, not very well).
` This gives them the feeling that they are an authority on the subject, so there's no getting the point across to them that they aren't. Not only that, but many of them are extremely volatile and instead of being articulate and using logic skills in their arguments, they try to see just how offensive they can possibly be.
` (As a physics forum manager, my Worthy Science Sources sponsor has found much the same thing. This is why I do not accept such comments on this blog.)
` Why are they so hostile? Perhaps this whole 'I'm right about what I think science is' business is something they feel is the very essence of their being. So, if you challenge them, you threaten them in the most personal way.
` Assuming this is a somewhat widespread phenomenon, it may well account for the fact that the internet is rife with such reactions to skepticism/science.
` This reader review is entitled 'What an idiot!' by Violent A, made on April 25, 2007. I think the title sums it up, and it's a typical example of this type of 'anything goes' commentary.
Wow... just wow, this dude has no F-ing clue what he's talking about. Was he even trying? If this is the best skeptics can do to promote their ignorant, hypocritical view of what they consider science vs. pseudoscience, then that is all the more reason to believe in the paranormal!` Might I point out that history is also a science? Historians are skeptics; they don't just leap to conclusions. They are very careful about accepting things as true. That's why they suspend beliefs about Atlantis - just where the story comes from and what it is based on is not for certain, so it's open to interpretation.
This book is so pathetically devoid of information, the arguments within are so hypocritical when not illogical and baseless, I feel sorry for him if he is actually as stupid as he sounds in this book.
If I had met him I'd be glum just like the driver guy he describes in the beginning of the book, whose belief in ancient civilization like Atlantis and Lemuria he glibly dismisses due to lack of scientific evidence. That degree of brainlessness -he can't even grasp the difference between history and science!!- is depressing. I wouldn't know what to say; "No words... they should have sent... a poet..."
` So were is Violent A's anger coming from, you ask? I think this statement makes it clear:
If you want to be an informed person, if you want a real candle in the dark, read works by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and David Icke.` If that doesn't, then perhaps this response by Q-fever will:
You're joking, right? Icke and Knight-Jadczyk are mentally ill. They believe that the world is controlled by reptilian space aliens or some such nonsense. Knight-Jadczyk talks to reptilian space aliens on a ouija board!` I can guess that this is why ViolentA is so... violent. (At least verbally.) When you've been fed this type of 'information' about skepticism, you view the words of scientists/skeptics as being totally dismissive, contradictory, uneducated and ignorant. When you integrate this belief into the very core concept of your being, you feel a strong urge to defend it ferociously.
I happen to know that the reptilains are actually subservient to an even greater race of half butterfly-half monkey super-aliens that have secret camps throughout the Brazilain rainforest (although they're originally from Neptune,i think). Anyways, you had me going there for a second, violentA.
` I know this because I used to be the same way, though I wasn't into believing that our world leaders are humanoid iguanas in disguise. I once felt threatened by the words of people like Carl Sagan. I would rant to myself; "What a bunch of closed-minded morons! And they're running science?"
Q: Well, what did I know about it?
A: Absolutely nothing. But I thought I knew a lot more than practically everyone, even scientists themselves!
` From a teenaged me, a book like Sagan's would have been greeted with retorts like, "I can't believe he thinks this skepticism stuff comes anywhere close to being spiritual!" and "He either doesn't know anything about science, or he's lying to everyone!" ...that is, if I could even be coaxed to read it.
` Never in my wildest dreams would I have come to realize that skepticism/the scientific method is only all about being cautious. You have to make sure you realize you're in a dead-end because it's usually overwhelmingly simple and easy to make major mistakes.
` The scientific method is all about anticipating, avoiding and finding such mistakes in any research so that we can build up our knowledge of the world as accurately as possible. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, is unlike science precisely because many or most of its mistakes are typically ignored, downplayed or covered up.
` However, I would have argued with this idea vigorously, because the fact that they disagreed with the 'sensible, open-minded' people whose preachings I believed were careful enough to qualify as scientific themselves, pretty much 'proved' that there was some kind of conspiracy against 'us'.
` Also, while I could believe that the most brilliant minds in science were being deceived (either that or lying), I did not stop to think that perhaps I - a complete know-nothing about the scientific method - could be the one being deceived!
` But I wasn't a know-nothing, I thought! I was one of those who saw through the delusion!
` Far from conspiring against who I believed to be valiant defenders of 'alternative science', dedicated scientists are constantly under attack from each other. The battles are not pretty, and the death rate of hypotheses is staggering.
` So, if you feel threatened by the prospect that you could be wrong about something you hold dear, or perhaps insecure in general, scientific debates and negotiations are probably not for you. A scientist must be comfortable enough to admit that nature (or people) can fool them!
` I noticed that one Amazon reviewer responded to an earlier review that had been removed from the website. I wonder what that person had written. Whatever it was, this response was precisely the type of thing that a) I needed to hear when I was younger and b) would have gotten angry at if someone actually expected me to believe it:
Some people see skeptisim as form of close-mindedness, and the writer of the review from June 14 "Science hmm" exemplifies that type of person.` No they don't. I certainly did not. You couldn't convince me, and I would have certainly laughed at anyone who said skepticism/science was a device that promotes open-mindedness.
Obviously anyone can tell that person is speaking without any basis, and its a very funny post, but also the reason why this book needs to be read (I'm sure that person, if he even read Sagan's book at all, did it with ingrained preconceived notions of the "evils of science")
This guy claims all of science is narrow minded and fascist (haha) but even many who aren't completely off their rocker, think skepticism is bad.
The skeptic mindset is to only [consider] facts at face value, and only believe when sufficient evidence is provided. This is the only way to promote a rational mindset. Those who think skeptics are narrow minded truely don't understand its purpose.
` I was very glad to believe what I believed because I really thought that skeptics/mainstream scientists were completely brainwashed. If someone had told me I'd agree with them one day, I would have been horrified and perhaps would have wanted to kill myself just to avoid this outcome.
` These are the strong feelings that the most vehement anti-skeptics probably feel. Of course they're not going to listen! But I don't expect that most people, even believers in pseudoscience, are like this. Perhaps most can admit that scientists aren't as dismissive as they may have been taught.
` Like Naturopathic ND, many readers were surprised at this fact:
...I did not find Sagan to be as close minded and negative on this topic as I expected, he is open to new age ideas as long as they can validate themselves.` While the book covers mostly paranormal topics, it does touch on religion here and there. However, one reader did find many quotes that compared religion to pseudosciences, and pointed out that this must indicate that Sagan was 'secretly anti-religious' and thought that all religious people must be a bunch of unreasonable extremists.
` As I had begun reading the book, however, I stumbled upon a paragraph that explains those statements:
In certain passages of this book I will be critical of the excesses of theology, because at the extremes it is difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from rigid, doctrinaire religion.` Then he goes on to say that religion itself has fought these excesses, which has resulted in such groups as protestants and liberals.
` The '3D Artsit/ Brandi' "Brandi" is evidently one of the extremists, however. She left a comment called: 'to bad--Your Lost---This book is clueless':
What can I say,` I was amused to see that, on her profile, she had given her review but one tag; 'satan'. But by no means did many religious people respond this way (at least ones that hadn't been so hostile that they had to be deleted).
The Devil is preety good at covering stuff up. He uses even the best Scientist and astronomers to crush anything spiritual.
Of coarse this book is garbage and I suggest that everyone who likes this book to please take yourself and your scientific thinking out of the box.
In the next coming years people you are gonna see some serious evil spirtual activity and because you have polluted yourselves with closing your mind of to it, you won't know or be ready for the things that are going to occur.
` Most did not have much issue with Demon-Haunted World, and some even corrected Sagan's ideas about things like exactly how and what they do or don't believe.
` Some, like M. Rodriguez, found it to be utterly mind-opening:
My first real read on skeptical thinking. I have just started to look at the world in a differnet way - steering away from the religious process. This book has opened my eyes and allowed me to see more clearly...` Note that, while science is the best method of discovery that we know, even it is not immune to criticism in the least. Sacred cow it is not.
...He sticks to the Natural world - as he should since it's the only one we truly know about - and doesn't offend other methods, but does point out their fallacies (as he does for science as well).
` Some religious reviewers described specific, profound awakenings, as with E. Dennis Marasco and his story about how he was able to conceive of a world without God for the purpose of understanding Sagan's perspective:
...It forced me to look through critical eyes at all the parts of my everyday life. For example, to imagine how I could stand outside at night and look at Orion and not assume that God had 'hung' those stars there was foreign to me.` He relates this to the void left behind by the family dog being killed by a car.
I grew up seeing stars and talking to God about my experience of them. To think about myself in the context of this existence without the awareness of myself in the context of my relationally-perceived world left me in touch with an abject aloneness....
...There was a 'presence' of some sort that was missing, even though she was only a pet. She was truly a being, and she filled the space of our home with some nondescript presence--really. This was suddenly missing. I could not now easily leave our two sons without the comfort of our former pet.` Aside from people with religious perspectives, many others nonetheless report that it is enlightening. Mr Sachmo, for instance:
This simplistically is how I experience life with and without an ongoing relationship with God....
...The part that I find most amazing is that, in my view, Carl Sagan interacted with "Nature" as a respected, valued, trustworthy friend. He capitalized the word Nature. He treated it with what Martin Buber, the Jewish philosopher, called an "I, Thou" relationship. Buber's concept (which Buber used to develop relational ethics) helps us see that there is a difference if we treat the 'other' not as an it, but as a "Thou."
Carl interacted with the universe as he saw it out of a set of beliefs that assumed that life can be explained from a rational point of view, that it is not an It, but a Thou. He held that which he studied in high esteem. I believe he treated it as God would really have wanted him to treat it (better sadly than almost all of those who call themselves believers).
...Well, it wasn't what I expected. Sagan didn't come at me with each controversial theory and rip it apart with his scientific mind. He did do this on a limited basis, but that wasn't really the focus of the book. This isn't Penn and Teller. It really boils down Sagan trying to educate people on the power of thinking.` Perhaps this is what Violent A was referring to as the book being 'pathetically devoid of information'? As far as I can tell, Demon-Haunted World is more about how to think, rather than what to think, so it doesn't go into nauseating detail about every little fact.
` Mr Sachmo continues:
Did I agree with everything Sagan has to say on this subject? Of course not. Did Sagan help me decide which side of the fence I would live on? Nope. But this book did teach me about how to search for answers to things that I may accept without thinking, which seems the logical thing to do when people WANT to believe in something strongly enough. I also learned that searching for answers doesn't make you a cynic, just someone who likes to look before they leap.` Certainly this ability to understand how to figure things out and get ideas across is to one's advantage. That's why I encourage people to learn what this science stuff is all about. In doing just this, Sagan's book has completely turned around the points of view of some, as with CQLambdin:
...It's not a book debunking myths. It's more an illustration of Sagan's belief that those who think will achieve.
When I read Sagan's book I believed in psychics. I believed in haunted houses. I also believed that people were being abducted by aliens. This book changed all that. Not only did it change my beliefs, it also single-handedly influenced me to return to college....` What a breathtaking development - and just the kind of development I myself would like to cause! In fact, just understanding what science is was one thing that made me want to return to college.
I was a college dropout working at a bookstore. I read Clarke's 3001, which in the appendix stated that The Demon-Haunted World should be required reading in every high school (I agree).
I then read The Demon-Haunted World. The book made me want to be a scientist, I found it so exciting. I re-enrolled in college, and now, over a decade later, I teach both graduates and undergraduates and am about to obtain a PhD. I thank Sagan for the influence, and for his WONDERFUL book, which IS a candle in the dark.
` Finally, another reviewer who calls themselves 'My Uncle Stu' gives advice to those who might be confronted by people who argue against the validity of the scientific perspective:
...Whenever you get in debates with religious types, or with those self-appointed geniuses, the philosophy majors, they will always hit you with the fact that science is just another belief system, just like any religion or philosophy. They will tell you science can't answer all the questions and is often wrong.` This is precisely why I am working towards being a popularizer of science, which starts both online and with a sci-fi novel I have been working on for the past year.
Of course that is true, if you look at science strictly as a body of knowledge. But that is not what science really is. Science is a process. It is a way of approaching the world, a way of formulating and testing hypotheses.
If it is just another belief system, then it is a belief system that grows by virtue of challenging its adherents to challenge and disprove the current state of knowledge. It's the only belief system where you have to be a skeptic to be a zealot.
Debunking myths is part of the fun of this book, but an even [more] important aspect to it is investigating how the human mind works and why we are drawn to myths and magical explanations for things in the first place....
It is astonishing how many people get through four or five years of higher education without having developed the ability to think critically.
The lack of critical thinking in this country has real consequences. It is the reason that the anchormen on the national news can't convey a story about a scientific or medical topic in a meaningful way. It's the reason that you meet well-educated parents these days who are more concerned about side effects from vaccinations than about the lethal diseases being vaccinated against. ... It's the reason the majority of voters in this country voted to elect a President who openly confesses to having a concrete interpretation of the world.
Think about that for a second. We have come to the point where adults fail to recognize that seeing things in black and white, all good versus all evil, is a sign of stunted emotional and intellectual development, not a skill to be bragged about. We live in a time when the media tells us that being balanced means presenting peoples opinions from both sides of the political spectrum, as opposed to challenging the statements from an evidence-based, rational perspective.
` I think it is ironic that when I was fifteen I was instead writing a sci-fi novel which basically sang the praises of pseudoscience and a particular New Age cult.
` In that long-gone writing attempt, a character that I perceived as being virtuous promoted the 'very amazing scientific theories' pointed out in in books such as The Holographic Universe and Beyond the Quantum by Michael Talbot.
` As I recall, the books took a mixture of normal scientific findings, combined with pseudoscience (including a complete and total misrepresentation of quantum physics) to create the idea that some perfectly normal phenomena could not be explained by anything but quantum physics - or at least this completely different idea that he called quantum physics.
` The phenomenon of twins? Since a split embryo results in two complete bodies rather than one body split in half, Talbot reasoned that this must be an example of quantum entanglement. Never mind that there is no reason to believe it can't be taken care of by molecular processes such as the activation of homeobox genes.
` Or what about groups of children who create a common language to unite two or more other languages, or deaf communities or schools in which the children develop a sign language of their own?
` Never mind that when a child learns language, they are constructing it afresh; they already have the framework to build any kind of language in their minds, and where it comes from matters not. Any language is a creative endeavor for them: The overwhelming need to communicate, and to fill this instinctual language framework, can spontaneously result in the construction of a new language, without much help from adults.
` Talbot claimed that this is really due to some kind of energy field that unites groups of people, even though there's no evidence for it (other than his interpretations of anecdotes about the behavior of wild Japanese monkeys, etc).
` Or what about rehearsing an action in your mind, which apparently improves your performance somewhat in the same way as actually practicing it does? Far from being a preparedness tool, he insisted that this ability has something to do with a piece of conjecture (which he also misrepresents) called the holographic principle, which is probably false and also has no logical connection with the way people's brains function - especially since they would be functioning within it.
` Because I had identified with the 'poor, beaten-down' Talbot, I didn't think to question his books one bit. I thought that scientists were mostly just a bunch of stubborn know-it-alls - as Talbot had maintained - and he was one of the few who actually stuck up for The Truth.
` With a light in my eyes, I vowed to carry on his work, to be 'the hero', to stick up for the underdog. It was all true, I believed, and it was only a matter of time before those 'nasty, venomous skeptics' realized his beautiful and stunning 'science' was real. (Well, it's been more than twenty years and its already-failed support only continues to get weaker.)
` At one point in my former novel, the 'virtuous' character discussed Talbot's ideas with two other characters, explaining that science is all about what one wants to believe, which is why Talbot's version of a holographic universe wasn't a mainstream idea.
` One of the other characters - who at first assumed that science opposed New Age spiritual beliefs and so was put off - marveled at this theory because 'real scientific experiments' obviously 'proved' these beliefs.
` The other one, a stodgy ignoramus I mistakenly labeled a 'skeptic', was expecting 'dogmatic' (actual) science and couldn't explain why these 'revolutionary facts' were wrong; she just grinned sheepishly and said she only knew they were wrong.
` In (painful) reality, I was the ignoramus because I had been the one who didn't know that there were any arguments to the contrary!
` The character who was doing the 'teaching' became angry and said (referencing Harry Harlow's baby monkey experiments); "Fine! Believe what you want! Cling to your terry cloth mother of dogma!"
` The 'skeptic' character then spent the next two chapters avoiding the 'virtuous' character until she finally realized how wrong she had been!
` I never thought I'd be going the other way, saying (to paraphrase a commenter of mine) that all the same, you have to be both open-minded when you want to be, and open-minded when you don't want to be.
` Surely, ignorance does play a large role in the reason why some people spit at skeptics and 'regular' scientists. There is the other thing, though; that feeling that one's identity is based on the pseudoscientific (or belief-oriented) point of view.
` Why else would anyone want to commit hara-kiri at the idea that they would one day oppose their current worldview? That worldview is part of their personality, their being. They don't believe that they can exist (or be sane) without it.
` Therefore, if anyone attacks the idea, it feels as if their very lives, sanity or souls are being threatened.
` In fact, just yesterday my psychology teacher was explaining to us students that mania can cause a person to come up with amazing, grandiose, and sometimes completely insane ideas (such as the belief that they can fly by jumping off a roof) and that it is trying to tell them they're not making any sense that causes them to believe that there is a conspiracy against them!
` I have experienced this very thing myself hundreds of times when my own father was in the throes of mania: He would be going on and on about some nonsense such as how Neanderthals from the Jurassic era genetically engineered marsupials and killed off all the 'normal' mammals of Australia so that these 'new, weird mammals' would have a place to live.
` Apparently, arguing with such beliefs (as well as unfounded accusations) bred conspiracy theories in his mind, and it is these that caused him to become convinced that I was one of many people who were trying to kill him.
` Finally, it makes sense to me: A similarly strong (though not necessarily manic) perception may be all that is needed to cause someone to believe that (because their view is unpopular with others, especially authority), there must be some kind of conspiracy against that view!
` Then, they come up with an explanation, such as 'they know the truth, but they won't admit it' or 'they're just a bunch of morons!' or 'they're so wrapped up in their own viewpoint that they can't see out!'
` What's funny is that, now that I'm a skeptic (a.k.a. critical or scientific thinker), I don't feel threatened at all anymore! Now I can see myself believing anything - talking Bigfoots who wear leisure suits, etc. - as long as there is equally incredible, though credible, evidence.
` My goal is now to carry on Carl Sagan's work - and that of numerous others - in explaining science to the layman, and perhaps even a few 'hopeless fearfuls' similar to myself in earlier days. I only wish to give people the message that it really isn't so scary after all, plus it's darn useful!
` Maybe someday people will be affected by my writing every bit as much as Carl's. I only wish he was still here so I could make him proud.
26 comments:
A lot of teenagers seem to think that they know more than highly-educated people. Sometimes they actually do, though in your case it looks like you were really off the mark.
You described yourself as ignorant, insecure, and arrogant, but now you've gotten over that.
Would you say that this fear of science thing is similar to the problems teenagers (at least in our culture) have?
Sorry to hear of your feline's problems.
It could be a steep uphill climb to carry on C.S.'s work, but you may be able to pull it off. You know there's greater problems than just trying to get people to think in a critical manner, that being just getting them to think at all. Too many are happy to be told what to think, to be told the simple answer (even when its far from the truth), too many just want to go on with a life of the last century. I'd love to just have them think for themselves first, then try to get them to think in a scientific manner.
` Truly, Galtron, these difficulties in thinking outside of one's perspective do seem to be similar to the ones American teens suffer.
` Teen conflicts, as I know you know, may have more to do with the way they are isolated from adults than brain development.
` Perhaps these people are going through a similar thing: They are isolated and prefer to stay with their group.
` Any 'attacks' from non-group members may elicit thoughts such as 'oh, the ones in charge are trying to squash us! Let's rebel!'
` I would keep elaborating, but unfortunately my brain is almost completely used up from all the work it's done this week.
` Thankfully, Charles, I think my kitten will recover (though I wasn't so sure for a while).
` That's a good point; how does one get people to even want to think in a critical manner?
` As if I need to reiterate; all I know is not to threaten these people's identities as believers, for they will perceive that you are attacking them!
` I had this problem once with a friend of mine who believed that our stone-age ancestors had wings and could fly.
` I 'attacked' her with questions of logic and evidence, mostly of the biological kind.
` She withdrew and told me that logic and evidence weren't important, and that all she needed was merely the feeling that she was correct to know that it was true!
` Staggering, I know.
` I suppose that simply asking her how large these wings would have to be for a caveman to fly could have been within her 'comfort zone' of thought.
` Perhaps that would have set the ball rolling, but as it was I acted hastily.
` But what I have heard from others, the real trick to challenging someone's viewpoint is to start out small and unimposing.
` The following comment has been placed within my response to it so I could edit out one restricted word.
Jeff Vachon wrote:
I hope your feline recovers quickly and lives to fulfill its mission to enrich your life.
` Thanks. Though I thought she might die at first (I could barely leave her side), she is now bouncing off the walls and keeping her sister in check!
What a fabulous post! I am a long time admirer of Sagan. Most Americans learned their prehistory from the Flintstones which suggested Dinosaurs were indeed around at the time of the earliest humans and we even kept them as pets.
` With the Flintstones and dinosaur toys that came with cavemen, I'll admit to being one of the duped (as a young child, anyway).
` I myself have noticed other examples of people getting their science and information from entertainment media.
` One guy I knew insisted that that game of dodgeball originated in an 'ancient Chinese opium festival' where participants tossed around a severed head.
` When I asked where he got that idea from, he said he got it from the comedy movie Dodgeball. It turns out this assertion was meant to be a huge, mockingly offensive joke, nothing more.
` Though I cleared that up with him, he still responded to some things I said (usually having to do with science) such as; "Nuh-uh, because there was this one movie...."
` *Sigh*
And let's not completly dismiss the existence of Bigfoot as there are more than enough footprints around to prove it exists.
` I think you're jumping to conclusions, there, Jeff. For one thing, proof is a very strong word:
` Proof would mean 'you can't deny it if you wanted'. A captured bigfoot dead or alive would be 'proof'.
` Tracks could count as evidence towards bigfoot, but they do not mean that bigfoot is the only explanation for them.
` A couple of years ago (on my first blog) I explained this in some detail:
` Even if there are a few thousand trackways reported, think of how many people there are in the U.S. today - about three-hundred million! Americans get struck by lightning 82 times a year! If that many people faked bigfoot tracks, this would mean that 820 trackways - getting close to a thousand! - would be made every decade!
` Even if one millionth of one percent of Americans faked some tracks each week, that would be enough to account for all the tracks ever found!
` Of course, that's just a statistical thought experiment, but it puts things into perspective; Dr. Krantz ['Bigfooter'] is clearly going overboard in his ... proposals ... to account for [the hoaxing of] all the tracks [that have been found, plus all the ones he imagines must be there out of begging the question.
` Krantz's reasoning spelled out is; 'bigfoot is real, therefore we've only found a few sets of tracks out of all the ones there are, therefore I imagine there are millions of tracks we haven't seen, and we couldn't have faked all of those, could we have?'
` That's right - he thinks that since we can't account for all his imagined bigfoot tracks, bigfoot must therefore be real.]
` While not all tracks are particularly suspicious-seeming, I bet there are a lot of people who can't resist trying to pull it off. [Including myself.]
...I could make some really nice 'Bigfeet' with some nice toe-prints out of plastic or something... and no matter what they looked like, they would probably look very 'realistic'!
` You see, it should also be noted that 'Sasquatch Tracks' come in all different sizes, from about ten inches to over two feet! They also come in a variety of shapes: The toes vary considerably, from being very long to very short, arranged from human-like to having opposable 'thumbs'; and while five seems to be the usual number, tracks with two, three, four, or six toes are also found!
` As for the rest of the foot, some are flat like a bear's, while others have high arches; some have ridiculously broad or narrow heels, and some prints have no heels, like a dog's!
` In other words, not only is it feasible that a bunch of people who don't even necessarily have to know each other have made all the tracks, but it looks like it too: Either the tracks are from a creature whose feet mutate constantly, or a bunch of people independently [have made] a bunch of different tracks.
` I should also probably mention that 'the first bigfoot' was invented during a publicity stunt in Hot Springs, B.C.
` The idea was to attract tourists by encouraging them to search for a tribe of giants (oversize humans) from local Native American lore. They were given the name 'Sasquatch' by J.W. Burns.
` The first description of Sasquatch as a hairy ape-woman came from the report of William Roe, though it is but a sensational anecdote (which was just the kind of thing desired by the officials of Hot Springs).
` On the phenomenon spread to American construction worker Ray Wallace and his invention of 'Bigfoot', which is openly a practical joke mocking 'Sasquatch', made to mess with 'the new guy on the job'.
` Some 'Bigfooters' still take some of Wallace's tracks seriously, (though they have seen the wooden 'Bigfeet') as well as other well-exposed hoaxes such as the Patterson film.
` I'm just going to have to write an entire post about Bigfoot, aren't I?
You'll probably hate me for this. One thing I do not dismiss is psychic abilities. Though often times overrated, these abilities do exist and I possess them to a certain extent (I someimtes consider it more a pain in the *** than a "gift"). I would not describe the ability as "paranormal".
` Having had these experiences myself, I know how you feel. Could you please clarify or email me about it?
Animals heed their natural feelings when a tsunami is about to strike. Perhaps they are able to sense changes in the movement of the Earth but it may be something more profound also. There is much we don't understand.
` As Carl might say, there's no reason to think it really is 'more profound', and there's no reason to think it isn't.
` Since it's up in the air, the only way to know is to test it out.
By the way, where are your other blogs?
` I can't reveal that here; doing so would cause an irreparable rift in the bloggerverse.
I was being facetious about the bigfoot prints. I firmly believe there are no giant snowmen, bigfoots, yetis or whatever you want to call them. BTW, what was the edited word?
` D'oh! I shoulda known. Then again, three people I know have surprised me lately by professing a belief in bigfoot.
` Still, I guess the whole bigfoot spiel I just did might be interesting to other people.
` I could also point out here that the 'proper' skeptical thing to do would be to suspend belief altogether rather than profess a belief against bigfoot, sensible as that may seem.
` And I'm sorry, but repeating the edited word in a place where it is forbidden would also result in an irreparable rift in the bloggerverse.
` Here's a clue: I replaced it with three asterisks.
CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT
Based on the book under discussion.
The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
1.) Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
2.) Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3.) Arguments from authority carry little weight [in science there are no "authorities"].
4.) Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5.) Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
6.) Quantify, wherever possible.
7.) If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
8.) "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler. Closely associated with the term "parsimony".
9.) Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified [shown to be false by some unambiguous test]. In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Plus, there are the informal fallacies.
And, for students and adults...
www.criticalthinking.org
S. E. E. Quine:
As a rule of thumb, if you wish to bridge that gap between hardcore science and the populace, you must broaden your knowledge data base of the sciences...know a lot about one area of science and some about the other sciences. Plus, you must write, write, write and, of course, be a critical thinker.
SUBNOTE: Occam's Razor
From: Principia Cybernetica Web
Occam's Razor
"Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.
For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution.
Occam's razor is especially important for universal models such as the ones developed in General Systems Theory, mathematics or philosophy, because there the subject domain is of an unlimited complexity. If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed. Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models. In mathematical modelling of systems, the principle can be made more concrete in the form of the principle of uncertainty maximization: from your data, induce that model which minimizes the number of additional assumptions.
This principle is part of epistemology, and can be motivated by the requirement of maximal simplicity of cognitive models. However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity."
` So, perhaps there is hope for figuring out ultimate reality after all?
` Thanks for your input, Mercury! Especially since it gives me an idea to do a 'Baloney Detection' post - how were scientific hypotheses selected? And why didn't others make the grade?
` (I should have enough time to do that now that I have a month off of school - if my computer cooperates!)
S. E. E. Quine:
"But what I have heard from others, the real trick to challenging someone's viewpoint is to start out small and unimposing."
Two things to be learned from this and your example:
1.) You cannot argue with the closed minded especially if the individual has adopted non-empirical knowledge as prima facie evidence for an explanation of the universe. Theological arguments are doomed and best avoided least they turn into shouting matches.
2.) It is true that one can start from the small and move to larger more comprehensive statements. This is best described in Plato's dialogs. Socrates was a master of leading from small arguments to more massive arguments and winning his case based on logic. The problem here is that logical analysis of the universe is not the only source of understanding.
You said elsewhere that life should have "mysteries"...an additional epistemology. Where would you draw the line? What criteria would tell you that, if your primary source of knowledge is empirical, when evidence stops and you must rely on metaphysics...the quantum world of events, destiny of mankind, theology?
S. E. E. Quine:
I have avoided this thread for I have specific reservations regarding Carl Sagan that are not really germane here but I was curious about the first individual you quoted in reviewing the book--William H. Fuller. I am not familiar with him in the circles of scientific or philosophical criticism so I did some investigation and found no evidence of his qualifications. But that makes no difference for anyone can review a book and I wish not to indict him for lacking those credible credentials. In his review he wrote something that I have been curious about for many years and have never found the answer. Fuller was discussing the merits of learning from the patient past via literature and said "...They allow people long dead to talk inside our heads...." That phrase "talk inside our heads" is surely referenced by the voice we hear...that "inner voice" that allows very private conversations to happen. That "inner voice" has a gender, specific pitch, and a plethora of languages. The simple question is: Do individuals born deaf have an "inner voice"?
Nevertheless, Sagan made a valiant and successful attempt to bridge the gap between science and the populace and to get people to think critically and make accurate conclusions. Unfortunately, most people were enamored with the graphics of science. This business of grabbing the viewer's attention and popularize science is not easy and requires great skill...it is an old enterprise and one tried by many.
1.) You cannot argue with the closed minded especially if the individual has adopted non-empirical knowledge as prima facie evidence for an explanation of the universe. Theological arguments are doomed and best avoided least they turn into shouting matches.
` You mean like people who say; "the universe exists, therefore God made it"?
` All I can say to that is; "how can you be sure that's the only explanation?"
` And of course they say they have faith or because the bible says so and so exit the realm of logic.
2.) It is true that one can start from the small and move to larger more comprehensive statements. This is best described in Plato's dialogs. Socrates was a master of leading from small arguments to more massive arguments and winning his case based on logic. The problem here is that logical analysis of the universe is not the only source of understanding.
` Well, of course not. You need actual observations to back up your logic as well, or they don't hold much water.
` There is something else I must be missing, however... perhaps it has to do with our own ability to comprehend or appreciate what we can understand.
You said elsewhere that life should have "mysteries"...an additional epistemology. Where would you draw the line? What criteria would tell you that, if your primary source of knowledge is empirical, when evidence stops and you must rely on metaphysics...the quantum world of events, destiny of mankind, theology?
` I suppose that since everything is pretty much tentative to begin with, there may not be such a sharp line.
` However, I am willing to bet that something like theology is not something that's going to help us a whole lot.
` True, though religion is apparently an entirely human construct, there are probably other human constructs - educated guesses - that may be more helpful.
` ...And yes, deaf people do have an 'inner voice', just not one that they can 'hear'.
` I am guessing, by the way, that there is some way to grab a person's attention with 'the graphics of science' and then draw them into something more substantial.
` Perhaps fiction? Of course, we don't want people to rely on fiction for science (re: the 'dodgeball' guy), though perhaps fiction can be used to teach how to tell the difference?
` My boyfriend points out that this has been used with great success in both TV and movies, for example the show with the 'mathematical cop' based on Richard Feynman, or CSI, which despite lacking a lot of true scientific facts does teach the viewer the art of critical thinking.
` Not having ever seen these shows I can't make that judgment myself, but I'm thinking that perhaps fictional accounts using real principles is a possible venue.
` That is the idea behind my science fiction novel.
S. E. E. Quine:
Ah, a rush of replies...she has teeth too...excellent.
1.) "You mean like people who say; "the universe exists, therefore God made it"? All I can say to that is; "how can you be sure that's the only explanation?""
Theological arguments, unless rigidity is relaxed, will go no where. They are doomed from the beginning if, and only if, the players are adamant as to their source of epistemology. Generally, science fears little from theology and rarely goes on the offensive. It is theology that always feels threatened: It is science that erodes the fundamental tenets of theology. Well, maybe not. As I have indicated many times, an epistemology of the universe may not be a mutually exclusive situation: Neither the theological nor science is correct but rather a harmonious blend of the two. As I have indicated it may be impossible to know all about the universe as exemplified by the issues with the quantum realm. Through such things as man's capacity to formulate and understand due to brain limitations, the inability to develop accurate instruments of measurement, or "just the way the universe is" [incomprehensible] necessitate another form of epistemology and that is the realm of metaphysics. It is legitimate and has a vital function in understanding the universe. The lamb will lie down with the lion.
2.) "You need actual observations to back up your logic as well, or they don't hold much water."
Not always true, for theoretical physics is based on sound logic of physics and mathematics but yet empirical evidence is lacking. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to offer factual evidence for philosophical logic of sociology, psychology, ethics...somewhat situational.
3.) "True, though religion is apparently an entirely human construct, there are probably other human constructs - educated guesses - that may be more helpful."
A word or two should be said here for there is a distinct difference between "religion" and "theology". "Theology" is more esoteric and philosophical dealing with concepts that the ordinary man does not trouble much thought. It is quite close to the concept of metaphysics. Men of the caliber of a Saint Anselm, Moses Maimonides, or Saint Thomas Aquinas. "Religion" on the other hand is quite different in that it is more people oriented and deals with simple understandings...and a lot of ritual. Examples: Catholic priests, fundamental clergymen, Billy Graham, or Jerry Falwell.
"...religion is apparently an entirely human construct...."
Well, Marx would add that "religion is the opiate of the masses". Religion, theology, science may well be merely "constructs" but yet could be played out the same way by other sentient beings we may never meet. Again, knowledge of the universe in its totality may never be known.
"...I am willing to bet that something like theology is not something that's going to help us a whole lot." If you can understand that theology may be part of metaphysics, I wouldn't bet a whole lot. The theology of 2007 will no way mirror the theology of 2500 especially as man matures and ceases this bifurcated fussing between religion/theology and science. Many events in human history were based on "educated guesses"--a good hunch.
4.) "...And yes, deaf people do have an 'inner voice', just not one that they can 'hear'."
You will need to elaborate on this. Any references?
5.) "I am guessing, by the way, that there is some way to grab a person's attention with 'the graphics of science' and then draw them into something more substantial."
You don't need to guess. Sophisticated graphics are very successful. Sometimes they are inaccurate...such as hearing an explosion in space--NOT. My overall experience on this is that they do not move individuals "into something more substantial".
6.) "the 'mathematical cop'"
The program was called “Numb3rs” where an FBI agent enlists the aid of his mathematical genius brother to solve crimes. It failed...for many reasons.
` D'oh! Shoulda realized theology is not all about religion.
` I suppose if it's also not that separate from science and based on our intuition and educated guesses, well, maybe that's the best we can do in some cases.
` That reminds me - the lack of evidence is what has always bothered me about theoretical physics. Then again, I don't know anything about their utility.
` About people born deaf having a non-verbal 'inner voice', well... In some cases I guess I'm wrong, if this carries any weight.
` By the way, in response to a blog post of mine asking about what schizophrenic deaf people hallucinate if not voices in their head, my friend also told me that he saw a crazy deaf woman signing at herself in a window reflection!
` As was mentioned in the first link, it looks like scientists have noticed that some such people actually do hear something!
` That makes sense because in my psychology class I learned that blind people do hallucinate visually.
` I know, the media can be terribly scientifically inaccurate! Even the Discovery Channel, the History Channel and the Learning Channel!
` A very learned friend of mine went to see a movie called Mission to Mars: During the scene where leaking fuel caught fire in the vacuum of space, he thought to himself, 'that's the last straw, this movie has officially lost my interest!'
` As far as catching people's attention, I was thinking of going for something way different than things that we know don't work.
` What is it? I don't know because I haven't seen much and haven't done any research. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
` Too bad about Numb3ers failing to popularize math. Not having a TV, of course, I don't know anything about the show.
S. E. E. Quine:
1.) "...the lack of evidence is what has always bothered me about theoretical physics."
Ah ha, now you begin to see the limitations of theoretical physics. These people are nearer philosophy than science and build their castles on sand.
2.) Your link on the "inner voice" of the deaf.
"In fact, Dr. Hickok's work has shown that sign language, despite its physical and spatial nature, operates out of the same brain departments as spoken language."
I would like to read evidence of this claim.
"...the brain has a special capacity to develop phonological representations, even when it does not have auditory input."
Totally bizarre. My colleague, who hallucinated a lot in the 60's, would love this.
3.) "Even the Discovery Channel, the History Channel and the Learning Channel!"
That's easy to explain. These are commercial ventures and "must" make money and they will do whatever they can to draw viewers...bad science, fantastic claims, spectacular graphics, awesome music, popular voice over narration, etc. The cinema is the same way. Did you ever consider the physics of Rambo firing a hand held 50 caliber machine gun and not landing on his back side after the first burst? Roll over Newton.
4.) “Numb3rs” died for many reasons including a poor supporting cast, character stereotypes, romance [no place in a program like this], and bad scripts.
"In fact, Dr. Hickok's work has shown that sign language, despite its physical and spatial nature, operates out of the same brain departments as spoken language."
I would like to read evidence of this claim.
` Pick up Stephen Pinker's 'The Language Instinct'. I know there's a bunch of stuff in there about deaf people and the way they use their brains in sign language.
` Might I add, the senses are indeed linked in some ways - most notably in people with synesthesia. Those who are blind report seeing colors, as do synesthetes with different types of colorblindness.
` One red-green colorblind synesthesate described (alleged) red and green as 'Martian colors' because he did not see them with his eyes.
` I think it's one thing to not follow the laws of physics for fantasy-type things, but it really gets me when pseudoscience or myths or whatever are presented as fact.
` If only they could find some really creative people who can find stuff that gets ratings without cheating!
` And one more thing - I just have to ask; what good does theoretical physics do besides give people mental workouts?
S. E. E. Quine:
"I think it's one thing to not follow the laws of physics for fantasy-type things, but it really gets me when pseudoscience or myths or whatever are presented as fact."
Then don't...and ignore it as "fact" and attempt to understand "myths" in another perspective. Generally, a clear distinction should be made between "pseudoscience" and "myths" even though there is some slight overlapping. The words fly like buckshot from an old blunderbuss when the subject of the unexplained and the need for the promotion/belief of the unexplained come to the surface. Reasons can be supplied for the need of theological beliefs, but what about the other popular topics such as extra terrestrial beings, yetti/big foot, the Bermuda triangle, Planet X, or mind over matter control to name just a few. Other than the possibility of coincidence of events, why, despite the lack of any scientific evidence and logical approach, do these "mysterious" events survive in popularity. Has theology failed? Does mankind feed off of these wild stories for existence? Why is clear, definitive evidence in most cases lacking, misinterpreted, or totally ignored? Are these stories vehicles of promotion for the charlatans of the world?
This is a complex subject for it covers the span of mankind's development of theology/philosophy [a guide on how to conduct one's life as an individual and as a group], politics [a set of rules to govern a nation and a means to employ such regulations], social behavior, and science to select a few.
Mythology today is just as important as it was over 4,000 years ago. But today, in a largely scientific community, the rigors of scientific methodology often destroy myths. In a way that is good for it exhibits a means of separating the unessential from the essential--those who want to exploit fear and ignorance for monetary gain. Purchase the latest video tape, book, or watch it on some pseudo science television program that is geared for viewers statistical revenues rather than authenticity. There are, however, some truly good science programs on the air waves.]
Some myths, though unproved, do have a positive value such as those associated with a number of religious movements. Though not authenticated, they nevertheless provide sustenance for many individuals and it thus becomes a matter of faith--that's fine as long as it is understood in its proper perspective. But the event of aliens and others may well represent something deeper--an erosion of some of the basics of a number of religions and in the vacuum of doubt and uncertainty these types of myths appear.
Before the INTERNET stories were of an oral nature. And much further back that was the only means of passing on a nations tradition, laws, etc.--at least until writing emerged. It just seems to me that the majority of these bizarre and fantastic claims are driven with making money and perhaps spreading fear. Ignorance can breed fear.
And then there are those individuals that just have to believe in something--so why not aliens. They in principle are more intelligent, and in some cases, offer a non-understandable hope either as a category of one or a group i.e., mankind.
Current mythology [ideology in some cases] is perpetuated by some religious institutions basically in their endeavor to maintain their status quo. Those are standard myths and are sometimes replaced and supplemented by new urban myths expressing probably some psychological aspect of the human psyche. Examples again: Alien visitation [past/present], alien interaction with some humans, crop circles, Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis, shroud of Turin, Planet-X, a staged moon landing, Yeti, and on and on. Some myths are highly localized and take on the persona of regionalism. Nevertheless, despite the validity of these phenomena, they may represent a psychological need for some individuals.
YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE: UFO SIGHTED
[On 13th August, 1960,near midnight, whilst driving east of Corning, California, state police officers Charles Carson and Stanley Scott saw a lighted object drop out of the sky. Fearing the imminent crash, they broke suddenly and jumped out of their car. The object continued to fall until it reached about 100ft, at which point it suddenly reversed direction and climbed 400ft where it suddenly stopped and began to hover. Carson wrote in his official report. "At this time, it was clearly visible to both of us. It was surrounded by a glow making the round or oblong object visible. At each end, or each side of the object, there were definite red lights. At times about five white lights were visible between the red lights. As we watched, the object moved again and performed aerial feats that were actually unbelievable". The two officers radioed the Tehama County Sheriff's Office and asked it to contact the nearest Air Force Base, which was Red Bluff. Radar there confirmed the object's presence. The UFO remained in view for more than two hours. During that time two deputy sheriffs and the county jailer saw it from their respective locations. According to Carson. "On two occasions the object came directly towards the patrol vehicle; each time it approached, the object turned, swept the area with a huge red light. Officer Scott turned the red light on the patrol vehicle towards the object, and it immediately went away from us. We observed the object use the red beam approximately six or seven times, sweeping the sky and ground areas. The object began moving slowly in an easterly direction and we followed. We proceeded to the Vina Plains Fire Station where it was approached by a similar object from the south. It moved near the first object and both stopped, remaining in that position for some time, occasionally emitting the red beam. Finally, both objects disappeared below the eastern horizon." Carson noted, "Each time the object neared us we experienced radio interference".
Okay, let’s take a look at this classic, and unexplained, 1960 sighting. Bear in mind the phenomena will still be unresolved, but at least a number of approaches will be entertained and a possible alternate more plausible explanation provided--the main one being a psychological need for such reports of UFO’s [perpetuation of mythology]. Not enclosed in the text above [and found elsewhere] is the printed material that there was alleged corroborating testimony from two deputies, a jailer, and some [?] inmates: “On their return to the Sheriff’s office they found that the object and been seen by two deputies and by the prison jailer, who had taken his prisoners on to the roof to observe it.”
There is a lot happening here some involving the methodology of logical analysis [the use of simple informal fallacies], alternate physical explanations, psychological reasoning.
Informal Fallacies:
1.) The appeal to “authority”. Here, it is the appeal to law officers. The whole idea using this fallacy is that it almost shot itself in the foot by citing the prisoners as eye witness testimonies. However, many sightings are appealed to via means of scientists [?], pilots, law enforcement--even President Jimmy Carter.
2.) Close to the above [regarding the prisoners] is “selective observational data”. In many cases, pertinent data is omitted.
3.) And then there is the appeal to “ignorance” whereby the promoter of this event wishes the event to be true and accepted even though there is truly a lack of evidence to make such a justification.
Lack of Physical Evidence:
This is a segue from #3.) in that there is not one shred of physical evidence for corroboration. This appears to be one of the biggest challenges for the myth makers being scrutinized by analysis in all UFO stories.
Psychological Reasoning:
There is a lot to this approach and can be applied individually or as a culture. Here is some interesting information: The classic years of UFO citing [from about 1950 to 1967] came in time packets: 1950, 1954, 1957, 1959, 1967. Any particular reason(s)? Social reasons? Perhaps, interest in the original story waned and needed revival every two or three years. The other interesting item is that the reported dimensions of these crafts are generally larger from North American sightings as compared to European sightings. Freud? However, one must also understand a couple of things about society at that time: The “Cold War” was a huge issue [ultimate annihilation], space exploration grabbed the public attention, and religion began to falter in spiritual matters of mankind’s relationship [through science] to the universe. One of several interesting psychological offerings came from Carl Jung who, in simple terms, believed that all civilizations share a selective consciousness of relevant relationships which were represented by symbolism such as earth and water or circle and triangle. The circle [roundness] as the sun, moon, representation of the universe--FLYING SAUCERS [?] Also, when mankind is troubled or fragmented [the “Cold War”; religious failings], mankind will find refuge in the symbols. It may not be as far fetched as it appears for it is evident that existence is full of troubles even though the “Cold War” has evaporated and replaced by terrorism; that religion has failed to patch the weakness of their ability to integrate and embrace a science oriented civilization. Seen any angels lately?
The History of all civilizations on Earth shows the element of "myth". The myths of creation, myths which explained the day and night, etc. Myths aren't just made up stories - they are a manifestation of the collective unconscious. In Carl Jung's words: "The subconscious, which we share collectively, is that ‘that immense treasury, that great reservoir, whence mankind draws the images, the forces, which it translates into very different languages, but whose common source is being found out more clearly all the time.’"
Since science has transformed this knowledge which came from the unconscious in a conscious analysis of our world, explaining the natural phenomena by using the scientific method [a rational methodology], the myths were "transferred" to the boundaries of our knowledge, to the phenomena that are still obscure to our consciousness. Then it arises the yeti, aliens, mermaids, ghosts... science cannot explain these set of phenomena but they are spread all around the world. I wonder if it could be a proof that the UFO sights are a manifestation of this collective unconscious.
Now I would like to relate a phenomenon that has happened since early 20th Century: the re-inclusion of old myths in our literature and consequently in some parts of society. As examples, I could give two kinds of current events: Books like "Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings", which brought us old myths that were almost forgotten: the witches, elves, etc. And films like "Star Wars" and "Matrix" which used elements of myths and religions and also recycled these old myths making them appear in a brand new and modern way. In both cases [the books and the films cited], their influence on society is enormous. I believe that the reintroduction of these myths has awakened the need for myths in some segments of our society and the studios and the publishing companies have discovered that myths make big bucks.
There is popular belief in the Jung approach and can be just as confusing and untenable as Freud. You must admit that Freud’s compartmentalization of the mind is as bizarre as Jung’s “collective unconscious” notions. Actual existence of these features may or may not exist but are nevertheless worthy tools for understanding human actions--individually and as a society. The examples you provided are significant for many reasons. The “Harry Potter” series is a wonderful delight in the reintroduction and clever blending of many old myths. Why are they popular? Well, that’s a much deeper issue and just may boil down to the fact that children as well as adults just enjoy a good story of fantasy. It may represent a somewhat secret realm where the laws of physics are suspended and provide an avenue for an alternate perspective of a possible reality. Maybe we just like good story. Of course, like the “Star War” episodes there is something beyond the obvious entertainment value of the spectacular and constant contesting of the laws of physics and that is the philosophical issue of “good and evil”--a modern morality play. All of these are major sophisticated perpetuation of the stories of Osiris, Isis, Gilgamesh, David and Goliath, and any of hundreds of mythological figures.
No doubt mythology and religion/theology are tightly bound, but there is a mythology bond to science as well. I am not exactly sure why other than to popularize and provide quaint stories of interesting and significant figures of science. Such mythology may not meet the iconoclastic status of a defiance of physics as exemplified in religion/theology and contain ulterior motives. And too, much of the broadly defined mythology takes on the form of anecdotes. Nevertheless, many are fun to read and the truth taken with a "grain of salt".
From: PhysicsWeb
“The legend of the leaning tower” by, Robert P Crease
“Historians are not sure if Galileo ever carried out experiments at the Leaning Tower of Pisa. So why, asks Robert P Crease, has the story become part of physics folklore?”
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/16/2/2/1
And, what about Archemedes?
“One day as Archemedes was lowering himself into one of the public baths in the city, he noticed that some water flowed over the sides of the tub. It is said that he became so excited that he ran out of the bath house through the streets of Syracuse, yelling, "Eureka! Eureka!" In Greek it meant, "I found it! I found it!””
One myth led to another:
The Golden Crown incident.
A detailed analysis of this myth.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcs.drexel.edu%2F%7Ecrorres%2FArchimedes%2Fcontents.html
Then, there is the falling apple episode with Newton.
"NEWTON AND THE APPLE" by, John H. Lienhard
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi606.htm
Or:
Though this is probably a long forgotten story of the Marathon battle between the Greeks and Persians of 490 B.C. it is nevertheless a case where scientific investigation can shed some truth of past events. Historical accounts are detailed from the ancient texts of Herodotus and Plutarch and the story roughly goes like this. The victory of the battle was transmitted via a runner en route to Athens--one Pheidippides who ran nearly 25 miles in September, delivered his message of battle victory and warning of a sea surprise, and died on the spot. End of story--well, not quite. Apparently some individuals began to investigate the physiology of long distance running and astronomical events and came up with a new perspective. That the Battle of Marathon was not in September 490 B.C., but more likely in August 490 B.C. Poor Pheidippides most likely died from heat exhaustion as climate, season, and human endurance didn't mix well. Furthermore, moon phases [astronomy] was a significant factor for recent scholars and modern sleuths to formulate the dates of the events. It can get complex and best left to Tariq Malik's article "Marathon Man: Astronomer Sleuths Revise Date of Ancient Run". Keep all of this in mind when you are watching the next Olympic games.
From: Space.com
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_marathon_0407191.html
And one last example involving the mythology of a famous person and scientific discovery.
I’m sure you will recollect the representational images of Ben Franklin flying a kite in a thunderstorm and discovering the power of lightning. Well, while colorful, it is false. Franklin was not stupid and knew full well the power of lightning and certainly new better than to participate as a conductor of sky to earth lightning. Lightning rarely discriminates and will shorten life spans quickly. Actually Franklin was doing experiments on static electricity. His documents even indicated that the so-called “Philadelphia Experiment” wasn't even conducted in the city and that the actual experiment was done in the country from the top room in a two story house with specific safety features such as holding a ball of hemp for insulation.
From: Time online
http://www.time.com/time/2003/franklin/bfkite.html
Science is slowly eroding our myths--sort of, but there is a need for mythology and little need of pseudoscience.
Okay, that was a long-winded reply.
"Theoretical physics" without a solid foundation of empiricism...Ebenezer Scrooge said it best--"Bah, humbug."
` What a trip I've had this weekend - and what a comment waiting for me upon my return!
` I've always wondered; if myths breed non-critical thinking and fear, how many people are unable to live without them?
` I'm pretty sure I used to be one of those people, though I guess I was wrong in the long run.
` Wow, that is one oddball UFO story (with an amusing use of the word 'broke') - My additional question is; did anyone even present any evidence of the object on the radar screen? If there really was something on the radar, you'd think that might possibly help people figure out what was going on.
` Though I've taken a few psychology classes, I don't know much about Jung. That's interesting, though.
` I've heard that myths - in the sense of folk stories, movies, and books - tend to have similarly 'universal' characters that people around the world tend to automatically respond to as if there are predetermined 'slots' in our psyches.
` I know, there's tons of stories about scientific discoveries, but they didn't quite happen that way.
` I grew up believing things like Chris Columbus 'proving' the earth was round and Ben Franklin 'discovering' electricity with a kite (not to mention, another famous politician chopping down a cherry tree...).
` Well, that's all the response I have time for - I have to leave right now but I'll probably be back this evening with more!
` Wow! I read all the articles! The only thing I can think of to say, however is:
` I wonder what are in myths and pseudoscience that people crave so much?
` Really, that gets me. I know it has something to do with peculiarity, specialness and unrealness - as well as the comforting feelings that go along with thinking you have it 'all figured out'.
` It is probably these 'innocent' feelings that usually cause the spread of these things.
` Charlatans are mainly the people who understand how the deception works and have discovered that they can take advantage of such believers.
` But, I wonder; how often does deliberate trickery happen to the average believer in, say... alien abductions? I wonder how many self-proclaimed psychics believe they really are?
I have a comment about the caught fire in space comment. Why couldn't fuel catch fire in space? There would only need to be a fuel and an oxidizer, some fuels even have their own oxidizers like the nitro-methanol commonly available to the R/C enthusiast. Sodium burns in a chlorine atmosphere. Vacuum is relative, and if a gas or liquid is leaking into space it isn't a vacuum around the leak, especially if its internal to some closed or semi closed chamber. If this isn't the case, then rockets wouldn't work in space. So I hardly think that could be correct. Maybe I'm too closed minded. Merc points that out to me. ;) I can be wrong here, and you are welcome to point out my faulty thought processes. I'd rather think correctly than incorrectly.
Charles:
Help me out here...I have read my comments three times in this thread and I have failed to find my reference to "Why couldn't fuel catch fire in space?" If I could find it, I would be glad to respond.
` To answer your questions:
` A very learned friend of mine went to see a movie called Mission to Mars: During the scene where leaking fuel caught fire in the vacuum of space, he thought to himself, 'that's the last straw, this movie has officially lost my interest!'
` The problem he had with it was that the fuel was burning in the vacuum of space without an oxidizer. Whether it is supposed to be or not, I don't know.
Maybe this small article from NASA will enlighten:
"To move an airplane or a model rocket through the air, we must use a propulsion system to generate thrust. Different types of aircraft use different types of propulsion devices, but all aircraft rely on some type of engine to generate power. Rocket engines, internal combustion, or piston engines, and jet engines all depend on the burning of fuel to produce power. Burning a fuel is called combustion, a chemical process that we study in middle or high school.
Because combustion is so important for aircraft and rocket propulsion, we will review the fundamentals. Combustion is a chemical process in which a substance reacts rapidly with oxygen and gives off heat. The original substance is called the fuel, and the source of oxygen is called the oxidizer. The fuel can be a solid, liquid, or gas, although for airplane propulsion the fuel is usually a liquid. The oxidizer, likewise, could be a solid, liquid, or gas, but is usually a gas (air) for airplanes. For model rockets, a solid fuel and oxidizer is used.
During combustion, new chemical substances are created from the fuel and the oxidizer. These substances are called exhaust. Most of the exhaust comes from chemical combinations of the fuel and oxygen. When a hydrogen-carbon-based fuel (like gasoline) burns, the exhaust includes water (hydrogen + oxygen) and carbon dioxide (carbon + oxygen). But the exhaust can also include chemical combinations from the oxidizer alone. If the gasoline is burned in air, which contains 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen, the exhaust can also include nitrous oxides (NOX, nitrogen + oxygen). The temperature of the exhaust is high because of the heat that is transferred to the exhaust during combustion. Because of the high temperatures, exhaust usually occurs as a gas, but there can be liquid or solid exhaust products as well. Soot, for example, is a form of solid exhaust that occurs in some combustion processes.
During the combustion process, as the fuel and oxidizer are turned into exhaust products, heat is generated. Interestingly, some source of heat is also necessary to start combustion. Gasoline and air are both present in your automobile fuel tank; but combustion does not occur because there is no source of heat. Since heat is both required to start combustion and is itself a product of combustion, we can see why combustion takes place very rapidly. Also, once combustion gets started, we don't have to provide the heat source because the heat of combustion will keep things going. We don't have to keep lighting a campfire, it just keep burning.
To summarize, for combustion to occur three things must be present: a fuel to be burned, a source of oxygen, and a source of heat. As a result of combustion, exhausts are created and heat is released. You can control or stop the combustion process by controlling the amount of the fuel available, the amount of oxygen available, or the source of heat."
Further interest may be secured from:
http://www.science.gov/
http://scirus.com/
http://worldwidescience.org/
` Hmmmm. So it sounds like rocket engines have a separate oxidizer - perhaps a solid or a gas? Perhaps the problem was that it ignited spontaneously without a heat source.
` That would seem to validate the aerospace engineer friend's complaint. ...The only way to know is to watch the movie!
S. E. E. Quine:
Sure, rockets have a separate oxidizer and they can be solid or liquid...and they don't need an atmosphere to perform a successful chemical reaction of combustion and thus a large quantity of thrust. There are "billions and billions" of molecular bits of combustion whose main end product is water vapor and heat plus the physics of thrust. Consider the shuttle: Two solid fuel boosters on the sides and a liquid gas main engine.
Spontaneous combustion is rare, usually occurring in the laboratory or by stupid house painters who use linseed oil and don't properly dispose of the clean-up rags...FIREEEEEEEEEE!
` Then it's settled: Whoever paints my house will have to pass the House Painter's Not-Setting-Things-On-Fire competency test.
Post a Comment