Our friends over at csicop.org have posted online a collection of essays by and about Carl Sagan.
One thing that stands out in them is how skepticism was for Carl Sagan a deeply ethical enterprise, not just a debunking hobby, or a way to show how smart we are compared to the numbskulls who believe nonsense. For Sagan, as for so many other leaders in skepticism — though it is not often framed like this — his skepticism came out of a kind of deep moral imperative. Because undue credulity causes so much measurable harm, it follows that there is an ethical obligation to work to mitigate it through speaking out and educating our neighbors. Whether you believe that space aliens are coming to Earth to solve all our problems so we don't have to do any work to fix them ourselves, or you believe that going to a faith healer or New Age huckster rather than relying on medical science to heal you is the right course of medical care, believing in things uncritically can be bad for you and bad for society. Sagan felt that it was the right thing — the morally conscientious thing — to work against those trends.
Of special interest to me considering my recent move to the JREF is the article “The Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Twentieth Century.” At the risk of engaging in skeptical hagiography, I note that Randi is named number one skeptic of the 20th Century, just like he is in my book.
Popularizer is a good thing written by WendyH,
January 07, 2010
Carl Sagan did much to inform people who otherwise never would have engaged their curiosity about science. Dr. Sagan would be glad for the subsequent offspring of COSMOS: NOVA, and cable channels that are more-or-less devoted to science, including the NASA channel on satellite TV. He made it pretty and fun. That's a good thing; I think he knew that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
... written by popsaw,
January 07, 2010
"Because undue credulity causes so much measurable harm" What if the truth caused more harm than good should it still be told? Many persons find comfort in false hope, especially when the truth (if revealed)removes all hope. Some believe they will see their loved ones in a spiritual afterlife when they die. I do not believe this to be true but what can I replace it with since the truth will be detrimental to such persons and the object of truth is to achieve good.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
... written by Squid,
January 07, 2010
Pop, I don't think that truth has an objective. Truth is just truth. It is up to us how we use it and interpret it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
... written by GusGus,
January 07, 2010
Of special interest to me considering my recent move to the JREF is the article “The Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Twentieth Century.” At the risk of engaging in skeptical hagiography, I note that Randi is named number one skeptic of the 20th Century, just like he is in my book.
In other words, you predicted that Randi would be number 1! You should apply for the megabuck! .
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@popsaw written by CasaRojo,
January 07, 2010
"What if the truth caused more harm than good should it still be told?"
I think there's are a lot of variables that would go into making that decision and I think that the answer would vary from one circumstance to the next. Then there's the subjective nature of the definition of harm and what the greater good may be. Generally, I like simple answers but I don't think that there is one to this question at this point in time, Pops. Besides, there's always the possibility that the truth (within the context of the "supernatural") has eluded us all.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
More Sagan materials (from the Skeptics Society) written by Loxton,
January 07, 2010
Very cool. The Skeptics Society has likewise posted a collection of essays remembering Sagan and his work (including a full-length lecture video from three Sagan biographers): http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-11-04#Sagan
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
We live in a Scientific Age! written by KS_SKEPTIC,
January 07, 2010
I remember the first time Cosmos was first seen on TV. It was downright Inspirational!!! After that moment on DR. Carl Sagan became my HERO!!! His book THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD should be in every Skeptics library. Everyone needs to learn (The Fine Art Of Baloney Detection)! People need to be able to tell the real Science from the Pseudoscience! We need a Candle to light the DARK path we travel together. Carl Sagan has shown us that SCIENCE is that Candle!!! We live in a Scientific Age! Even today a lot of people seem to have no understanding of Science whatsoever. Some religious groups, act like they would love to bring back the Dark Ages!!! They purposely distort History and Science for their own gains!!! Our primary goal should always be to "Support Science, Not Superstition". The United States needs strong Science programs in order to stay ahead. People need to know how Science works. DR. Carl Sagan is without a dought one of the most inspiring Scientists to ever walk this Pale Blue Dot!!! Thank you all for helping to keep his memory alive! He is truly missed.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
Congratulations Randi!!! written by KS_SKEPTIC,
January 07, 2010
"Randi is named number one skeptic of the 20th Century"
Congratulations Randi!!! You always have my vote!!! And yes I did see this coming!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
... written by Bruno,
January 07, 2010
I started by reading the article called "the burden of skepticism". I thought I knew what good writing could be like but this is dazzling.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
w k clifford; ethics of belief written by joed,
January 08, 2010
the following link is a powerful essay about morality and belief. if you are interested in the morality of critical thought then check it out. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html "To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." the word 'wrong" here is a moral word, as in right/wrong, good/evil etc.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
... written by Phildonnia,
January 08, 2010
I was always impressed with the way that Sagan was able to separate the belief from the believer in his criticisms, mercilessly ripping the former while showing respect and even compassion for the latter.
And his celebrated "Pale Blue Dot" speech gives the lie to anyone that says that skeptics and scientists are arrogant.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by Crocoduck,
January 13, 2010
What could possibly be better than "in order to make an apple pie, first you must create the universe..."
"Because undue credulity causes so much measurable harm" What if the truth caused more harm than good should it still be told?
Who is to decide that the truth will cause harm?
Who is to decide what truth will cause harm?
You?
Me?
Some appointed infallible Grand Paternalist?
What if the truth initially causes distress, but leads to acceptance of reality, and a greater satisfaction in life?
If you read On Death and Dying by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, you will find that there is little to defend delaying the truth. In the end, they realize that they are dying. Is there a much more difficult truth to tell than, "You are dying"?
All that credulity is really about is delaying awareness of the truth. In the mean time, the hucksters make money selling feces the credulous. Building themselves mansions on the life savings taken from the credulous. This is the good you defend?
We need to stop trying to tell other people that they can't handle the truth.
We need to treat others as intelligent beings capable of handling the truth.
I do not believe that it is at all kind to do otherwise.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please
register if you do not have an account yet.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
