I posted earlier today about the Republican Party’s hostility to scientific knowledge.
Just before his death, Carl Sagan warned us about the perils of a technological society where fewer and fewer people know, or care, what science says.
Skip to content
Queue DB or Maurizio to misuse Sagans words about scepticism.
Yes, DB and O-Log may try, but they won’t get far. Sagan nailed it.
My colleagues at work and I had two questions we always asked at some point as we attempted to solve the world’s problems.
“What’s the plan?” and “Who’s in charge?”
For those who don’t already know, the answers are….
“There is no plan” and “No one’s in charge”
Fits Congress perfectly.
According to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, “the adults are in charge”. The fact he can say it with a straight face is astounding given the juvenility he and his merry band of miscreants have brought to the government with schoolyard type bullying and paybacks.
I despair of Australia’s Abbott regime, just at a time when we need unity, his top business advisor bashes the IPCC (see attached)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/tony-abbotts-top-business-adviser-accuses-ipcc-of-dishonesty-and-deceit
indeed http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/abbott-cannot-deny-this/
No you are wrong stupidity is in charge but the difference is they have the technology that we created for then. Also you need to add two questions before the other two. “What is happening, how can we correct it then “What’s the plan?” and change “Who’s in charge?” to who should be in charge.
And yes you are so spot on!
Cue…..oops, New Year hangover.
Exactly what happened in Canada when the conservative government of Harper abolished the post of national science adviser in 2008, now look what is happening in the Alberta tar sands region
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/29/7-500-mile-ring-ofmercuryfoundaroundcanadastarsands.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080130/full/451505a.html
Its worldwide madness
I should say its worldwide disregard and unconcern for the health, safety and well-being of citizens over short term profits. The old conservative party of the U.K was against industrialisation (looking after the wealthy land owners) and had particular concern for the use of children in factories, the conservative government of U.K organised and passed the clean air act, effectively eliminating city smog, even Maggie Thatcher worked for early global action on climate change, disassembled the U.K coal mining industry and favoured nuclear power. So why today’s moronic science bashing and disregard particularly from the right side.
Oh that’s not all – the Gov’t of Alberta is handing off oversight of the tar sands to the newly-minted Alberta Energy Regulator in 3 phases.
http://www.aer.ca/about-aer/governance
Despite this being described as “complex undertaking that requires careful implementation” and “the Government of Alberta is taking the time to ensure a well-managed transition using a three-phased approach”, Phase 1 was done in June, Phase 2 completed at the end of November and Phase 3 is supposed to be completed in Spring 2014
How is the AER funded?
The AER is 100 per cent funded by industry and is authorized to collect funds through an administrative fee levied on oil and gas wells, oil sands mines, and coal mines. The industry-funded model is commonly used by agencies that regulate various industries from across North America.
Let’s just say that I’m not optimistic about this new agency and its oversight of the industry and the tar sands.
This interview surfaces in unlikely places including a 911 truther site. It’s more than interview obviously, it’s a call to arms against the Forces of Darkness.
Ironically, among commenters on this site, those Forces include anybody questioning Scientific Authority, ie they include Sagan.
It’d be nice if we could discuss this away from petty partisan politics, or not in the usual Capitalism Is Bad frame of mind, but I can imagine that’s simply not possible.
Did you watch the same video interview as me ? – it is about science and technology and the dangers of not understanding it (ignorance) and having powers (ie. governing). I believe you could call me a capitalist, but I do believe that citizens health, safety and well-being should be considered by governing powers ahead of short term profit motives. I think the concern of this post is that science is not being considered by those who should know better. You completely interpret differently (is it me ?).
No, it’s not you. I asked myself the EXACT same question after reading O-Log’s comment
“Did he watch the same video interview as me?”
I think Sagan’s point was to be skeptical of those misusing Scientific Authority and have no idea what O-Log is talking about.
Am pointing out this video is popular in very different clouds. It represents whatever people want it to represent.
I’d stick to a literal interpretation instead
Carl Sagan was from a very humble background had a brilliant intellect as an American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, science popularizer and science communicator in astronomy and natural sciences.
He had some social concerns during Reagan and Gorbachev’s era on nuclear weapon testing as many did in those days. You paint him as a radical monster stirring up dark forces, I hate to see institutions/people such as Heartland Group/Wattsupwiththat etc. trying to discredit the reputations are some of our finest minds. What about his great friend Stephen Hawking – he is also outspoken on scientific matters (and still alive), are you going to accuse that wheelchair bound intellect of appealing to dark forces of anti capitalism or the like or tarnish his great lectures as being used for petty partisan politics. I do not give a toss about politics but please stop tarnishing the great talent we have and have lost.
fortranprog – you have started the new year with a piece of total insanity. I have never and will never say or think that Sagan was “a radical monster stirring up dark forces” and there is no way anybody without an agenda can interpret my words like that.
What I said is that Sagan’s last interview resonates with anybody who thinks he/she is battling against “dark forces”. That’s why the nutjobs aka 911 Truthers will post it with pride, despite them being not exactly the brightest force around.
I think you pretty much said what everyone thought you were going to say…
The thing with questioning scientific authority, is you have to do it competently. Otherwise you’re wasting people’s time. Speaking of which, you haven’t really posted about science on this blog for a while have you? You’ve just been bringing up irrelevant distractions like 911 and, ur, wasting people’s time…
David – for the millionth time – I am not the subject of this blog post or of any other blog post by Peter – and I hope I never will be. When and if that happens we will talk about me. Thanks.
I.e you basically ARE an irrelevant distraction?
I have to agree with you on the point that people can cherry pick Carl Sagan’s words to fit their agenda,and I am fairly familiar with Sagan’s point of view from his interviews and writings.So that prompts me to ask what you think the point was that he was trying to make in this interview? It is hard for me to tell from your comments thus far.
That question was for omnologos,in case that wasn’t clear. It did not track with the comment that I intended.
skepticmac57 – as I said I’d stick to the letter of what Sagan said. For example: “Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.
If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.”
Hence when I and others like me move from “scientists say” to “hey scientists what about this or that” we are not evil deniers trolling to destroy civilization but doing exactly what Sagan invited us all to do.
It’d be interesting to find out what other quote in the same interview is interpreted by commenters here as “shut up and do what you have been told to do by the experts”.
I thought that was what you were getting at,but your reputation proceeds your remarks,and I suspect others were reading in to your comments the kind of sentiment that they expected rather than what you said,and it wasn’t exactly clear to me either,but fair enough.
The fact that your follow up comment to me shows that you still don’t really get it is evidence of your failure to apply the critical thinking and scientific skepticism of which Sagan was a tireless champion. You and other critics of AGW keep raising the strawman argument that we whom accept the current science behind AGW are supposedly succumbing to an argument from authority,despite the clear misuse of that class of fallacy in this context,but hey whatever works right?
The scientific method allows for and depends on being challenged by evidence that is inconsistent with a proposed hypothesis, but once the questions raised have been looked at and explained,then it is time to move on to new questions and challenges.This is where deniers fail,because they keep coming back to long discarded and false concepts and poor mathematical analysis, and embrace ideologues such as Monckton and Inholfe,yet demonize Michael Mann for example, and use the legal system as a cudgel to punish,threaten,and silence those whom they disagree with.
There are some more reasonable voices on the contrarian side,but they are not the ones driving the argument,and the ‘throw anything against the wall and see what sticks’ strategy without any internal dissent in the denier ranks should be very troubling to anyone who thinks of themselves as being an intellectually honest participant in this debate.
Thanks for raising this point. My argument has nothing to do with you or anybody else following (or not) authority.
What I read in Sagan’s words is the importance of being able to question anything and everything. You and others have instead been trying to find reasons to prevent such questioning, by using insults such as ‘denier’ or improbable telepsychology about the intellectual honesty of strangers.
Please quote Sagan where he says it’s time to move on.
So Omnologos try viewing this superb video piece from two of our greatest scientific minds:
omnologos- I guess it would be hard to find a specific quote by Sagan to satisfy your request,but for the life of me,I find it hard to imagine that Sagan or any rational scientist would,after having looked at, and explained any discrepancy in an hypothesis, would then find it reasonable NOT to move on to further research or questions.
That doesn’t mean that if anyone could raise other valid questions, that they should be dismissed out of hand,but if they are simply re-raising the exact same objections that have been previously dealt with,then it would bring scientific inquiry to a standstill having to repeatedly reassert what has already been explained before moving on.
I suspect that is the goal of those that want to see an end to AGW climate research,unless of course it comes up with their preferred “right” answer.
Lets state the question as I or you rather than we. For example, are you able to determine questions is a scientific and reasonable manner? I would say the first requirement is an ability to reason. That is, avoid logical fallacy and unsound judgement. Then there is the application of science. On another note, exactly as Sagan says, if we don’t know that “way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility” we will fail. By that, he means the way of science. In fact, he is saying society is becoming more scientifically illiterate. In particular, politicians. And specifically, politicians that eliminate scientific institutions are contributing to this malaise. In fact, Sagan is supporting a pro-science view. This contrasts with a definition of deniers that are anti-science. How so? Because they advance the notion of ignorant, uneducated, armchair biased opinions over the method of science. How do we tell? Well, at least by their ignorance or the opposite, their education. One measure, how much armchair opinion vs how much education. The Dunning-Kruger effect. How difficult is this to ascertain? How about CO2 is plant food. The 600 year lag. CO2 is too small to have any effect. Ever heard any of that BS? Why yes. Guess who. Because satire is beyond you, I will state that the question is rhetorical.
Christopher – I cannot find where Sagan said he or anybody else were supposed to be in charge to determine whose questions were allowed or weren’t. Please help.
Sagan said use scientific method and reason, not politics and bias. He also warned that if a population was scientifically illiterate, it was putty in the hands of demagogues. Iknownologic to lecture us on the properties of the Weibull distribution? Since mr know it all is well versed in climate matters, he knows where it is frequently used. NOT. Sagan was referring to empty headed know nothings. Thanks for providing an example. Semantics incorporated. Sagan says someone is in charge? No one said that. Correct. Except know it all. A tangent intended to mislead. Dave Minor is right. An irrelevant distraction. Off topic as usual. Any time the misleader can stay on topic and provide scientific discussion… well no one is holding their breath waiting for that. When was the last time the all knowing one provided a reference to peer reviewed literature? Rhetorical.
maurizio,
When one’s “this and that” is nothing more than an endless regurgitation of PRATTs one might think one would recalibrate one’s skepticism to more accurately reflect reality. That is the scientific and intellectually honest thing to do.
But, no. That would entirely dispel the aura of rational hero in which such a one wraps oneself.
“shut up and do what you have been told to do by the experts”
This is an interpretation of others’ beliefs that exists only in your own mind. It is, as usual in your case, psychological projection.
Sagan’s basic point, and it’s been raised by several great thinkers in our time, is that we’re falling behind in wisdom while advancing in technological capability. This sets up great dangers for our species (and others), because the unwise use of that technology can lead to a multitude of unintended consequences (usually called ‘accidents’).
Unfortunately, this trend is likely to only continue and amplify. We never seem to learn, or even question, what we’re doing or why we’re doing it. What we’re seeing instead is more and more people rushing to the conclusion they wish to be true, instead of what is actually true, and blinding themselves to the information that might contradict that. it’s the opposite of the scientific rigor that Sagan is asking of us.
Sagan’s basic point is that we must strive to be equipped with the right tools (and liberties) to be able to ask the right questions to an evermore science&technology based society (and, partially, elites).
He never said (AFAIK) that we must prevent people from asking the wrong questions.
I completely agree on your first sentence. On the second sentence, I found this:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/147806-we-can-judge-our-progress-by-the-courage-of-our
“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.” — Carl Sagan
So, to Sagan, all questions can be asked (he never says we should force people to only ask certain questions – he’s saying quite the opposite of that), but he’s also saying the only really worthy and meaningful questions are the courageous and truth-seeking ones. Unfortunately, there are only too many who will seek to obfuscate with deliberately misleading questions, or sophistry.
thanks jimbills – we’re getting somewhere at last. somehow Sagan wasn’t worried by “obfuscation”. One can expect that in a society where all questions can be asked, a vast majority of them will be unwittingly obfuscating (Pareto’s rule and all that – Hofstadter wrote about it in Methamagical Themas).
This goes to the core of something I haven’t understood as yet. If AGW is such a grave concern why are so many of its proponents focusing on trying to silence whoever thinks otherwise rather than on solving the grave concern?
I mean if I woke up tomorrow with my brains transmogrified in an exact copy of Christopher Arcus’, so what? How could that help solve AGW? How could unanimity on any topic help solve it? (question)
A translation. If you don’t know science, then all you can talk about is opinion. It has been noted that some deniers grasp of probability and more than a few other topics is wanting. Precisely what Sagan is saying. When non-scientists substitute their unscientific opinions for scientific process… well lets just say that Sagan did not intend his comments to be misconstrued into representing that all opinions are equal. Unfortunately, and right on cue,… thats exactly what has happened, as predicted by just about everyone on this blog. No matter. Peter wants proof of Denierland. No problem there.
I have never said that all comments are equal. Stop making things up.
“If AGW is such a grave concern why are so many of its proponents focusing on trying to silence whoever thinks otherwise rather than on solving the grave concern?”
Hmm. I know you don’t like armchair psychology, but you’re asking a fundamentally psychological question, so it really has to be addressed in that manner.
First off, I think you’re reading into it something that isn’t there. Any scientist worth his/her salt doesn’t want to “silence” another scientist for their findings, and any true and courageous thinker wouldn’t want to “silence” a dissenting opinion. Any real thinker wants to hear the opposing view and weigh its merit (or lack of) on their own.
But a truly worthy dissenting opinion regarding AGW (the basic theory) is virtually nil, and unending arguments are nevertheless put about to confuse the matter. Even the skeptics with an actual scientific background agree to the basic theory that man’s GG emissions are contributing towards a warming atmosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
It’s highly frustrating for any serious thinker on the subject to be constantly subjected to repeatedly proven deceptions and misdirections. This type of “argument” is motivated by a desire for what feels good instead of what actually is, as Sagan was addressing. This frustration towards constantly addressing bogus arguments DOES come out in inappropriate ways, but it’s pretty understandable.
Now, when you get into the projections as to how bad it will be (CAGW vs. AGW), the scientific literature is full of conflict, and it probably always will be until things actually play out. It’s clear it’s going to continue warming if our emission and deforestation patterns don’t change, though. It’s also clear that the warming is already having an effect in some expected and highly unexpected ways.
This, of course, sets up all sorts of conflict and disputation. A number of people just want our way of life (our current habits and patterns) to continue and expand, and anything that may threaten that becomes undesirable. The wish overcomes reason in this case, as a conclusion that is desired is chosen over a conclusion that is true. It’s not a mistake that Dr. Roy Spencer also has a book out called “Fundanomics: The Free Market, Simplified”. A desire for one worldview naturally leads towards a rejection of a contradictory one.
People like Dr. Spencer are given a catbird seat, though. They actually get to be the David to the scientific Goliath, because their views are so overwhelming rejected by the scientific body at large. No one is really trying to silence them. They still talk as loudly as they want. And, boy, they do. But then their views, and how they are mistaken, have to re-analyzed over and over and over. What you think is them trying to be “silenced” is the sound of a never-ending Whack-a-Mole game.
There’s a second part to your question: “rather than on solving the grave concern?” Well, again, you don’t see that most of the people concerned about AGW are desperately searching for a solution. You see it in every other one of Peter’s posts, for instance. Most of the people grasping for a solution are only too aware that any real and meaningful solution will require political will, economic will, and public will – all of which are extremely difficult to impossible if there isn’t even basic agreement as to its need.
When one sees that need towards real action (what type of action can also be endlessly debated, as it is here even by most of the people who fully agree that AGW is a problem), the bogus arguments about WHY the need exists in the first place because a source of anger towards those that see the need, a source of confusion towards the ignorant, and a source of hope for those with a desired conclusion.
You turning into Christopher won’t solve AGW – ha ha. If you look closely, there isn’t unanimity even here, not by a long shot, except for those matters where there is little to no reason to not be unanimous.
jim – I can’t read all your comment right now – but since my blog’s About page has said since 2007 the equivalent of “man’s GG emissions are contributing towards a warming atmosphere“, I am not sure how much of it applies.
The attitude here is that any question about catastrophic predictions makes you a “denier”. And that’s what I have found all over the internet for all of these years. Agreeing with the warming effects of GHGs makes no difference.
“…..any question about catastrophic predictions makes you a “denier”…..agreeing with the warming effects of GHGs makes no difference”.
Perhaps an appropriate analogy would be having one or two people in a crowd of one hundred watching a house burn saying “it’s only one room on the first floor so far” while all the rest say “all evidence points to the whole house burning to the ground before long”. As the fire spreads, the “one or two” say “BUT, BUT….it’s not out of control YET”, while all the rest say “all the evidence points to the whole house burning to the ground before long”.
Need I go on? “Agreeing” with the warming effects of GHG while at the same time trying to be a contrarian (and make the discussion all about you as well) is not helpful—-it certainly appears as if things will become “catastrophic” if we don’t do something soon about CO2—-why would you question that?
Inappropriate analogy but let’s follow it up nevertheless …what’s ‘not helpful’, exactly, when somebody expresses an opinion you disagree with? Do you need my support? Do your opinions rely on being shared with everybody else?
When a house is burning the victims and the fire brigade don’t focus on polls.
O-Log saying “Inappropriate analogy” convinces me that it IS appropriate.
Can anyone interpret the rest of his message for me?
I just asked you to elaborate on “not helpful”…
Didn’t Sagan come up with the Faint Young Sun Paradox idea? So in a way he too was a bit of a ‘climate’ scientist.
Agreed – He certainly understood the dangers and consequences:
http://io9.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135
Yeah, the idea certainly isn’t a new one. I was rummaging through Science’s database the other day looking for the effects of pollution on garden plants trying to figure out if pollutants collect/concentrate in vegetables or similar, and in one article, Science 21 May 1965:
Vol. 148 no. 3673 pp. 1060-1066; DOI: 10.1126/science.148.3673.1060, Air Conservation Report Reflects National Concern, there was a paragraph dedicated to climate change. This is 1965, but the last sentence went something like, ‘It’s hard to figure out what’s causing what, do to the complexity of the system, but increased CO2 could very well cause climate change.
This is just some random article I clicked on. I wasn’t looking for historical views on climate change. But there it was. Sagan’s essay kinda reminds me of the article.
Another sad loser trying to move the discussion from Sagan to…me. I’d be flattered were it not for the massive #fail involved.
This is your contribution to scientific discussion? It sounds like childish kindergarten playground taunts. Please don’t continue the discussion about … you… other peoples comments about …you…. The world in relation to …. you..,
you…. another sad loser trying to talk about …. you….. you’d be flattered…. youou… yoouou ,,,,, youuo,, yes where were we, Carl Sagan and scientific ignorance. Well where do we stand on that. Scientific ignorance.. or trust scientists. Who do you want to design your bridge… your airliner. Of course your could have a mechanical engineer clean your teeth. You could have a professional writer design the bridge. We could have the dentist write the manual. But we all know how that would turn out. Shall we have Mr. Monckton design our bridge? Shall we have Morizio clean our teeth and fill our caries? I think there is a reason we prefer scientific specialist opinions over our own. We don’t want to be riding that elevator designed by Mr. Monckton. I would just as soon have the elevator designer do the design, and the elevator technician do the maintenance. Of course some still prefer to pilot their own jetliner and do their own neurosurgery.
Christopher…you tried to derail the discussion by making it personal. That’s why you’re the loser.
And if you believe Sagan said “trust the scientists” then I can only despair at what poor Sagan would’ve thought of that.