Science Skepticism/critical thinking

Three things about Carl Sagan

Today is the tenth anniversary of Carl Sagan‘s death from myelodysplasia at the too-young age of 62. On this day, as part of the Carl Sagan Memorial Blogathon (more here), I’d like to explore three observations about Sagan.

First and foremost, Carl Sagan was brilliant at expressing the sense of wonder at the universe and how amazingly fortunate we are to be able to perceive it. Even as scientists, we often get lost in the nitty gritty and the details of what we are doing. It’s all too easy to lose sight of the forest through the trees and forget about just how amazingly beautiful and complex the universe is. As a physician, in studying detailed mechanism or diseases or strategies of treating diseases, it’s easy to loose sight of the wondrous complexity of biology and how the human body and mind function. All I have to think of is Carl Sagan and his lines in Cosmos about “billions and billions” of stars, and it brings a smile to my face and a reminder to me just how wondrous the world is and how amazingly complex life is. In this, I’m sure I’m not alone.

Second, Sagan emphasized something about skepticism that it is easy to forget. Indeed, I struggle with this from time to time. I’m referring to this quote:

The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status. Whereas, an approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition, that recognizes that the society has arranged things so that skepticism is not well taught, might be much more widely accepted.

And he’s right, at least to a point. It’s very easy to fisk, even seductively so. It’s easy to tear apart pseudoscience. Heck, I do it almost every day. And some forms of pseudoscience or misinformation deserve to be dissected mercilessly and slowly, without the least gentleness. Holocaust denial is one such example, because of the hateful ideology that motivates it. No quarter should be given. Certain dangerous forms of quackery are another example, because of the harm they cause desperate patients. But most other forms of pseudoscience do not have such a vile ideology as the main well from which they spring or cause such demonstrable harm to people as certain forms of quackery, and thus their adherents deserve to be treated respectfully, at least until by their behavior they demonstrate themselves unworthy of respect. At times, I wonder whether over the last two years I’ve let myself drift too far towards “Insolence” and away from the “Respectful” part of this blog’s name (not to mention whether I enjoy doing Your Friday Dose of Woo so much because it lets me go wild with the insolence). It’s something to think about as I contemplate what changes I might want to make in this, the third year of the existence of Respectful Insolence. Indeed, I need to be on guard against what Carl warned about:

Science involves a seemingly self-contradictory mix of attitudes: On the one hand it requires an almost complete openness to all ideas, no matter how bizarre and weird they sound, a propensity to wonder. As I walk along, my time slows down; I shrink in the direction of motion, and I get more massive. That’s crazy! On the scale of the very small, the molecule can be in this position, in that position, but it is prohibited from being in any intermediate position. That’s wild! But the first is a statement of special relativity, and the second is a consequence of quantum mechanics. Like it or not, that’s the way the world is. If you insist that it’s ridiculous, you will be forever closed to the major findings of science. But at the same time, science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way you can distinguish the right from the wrong, the wheat from the chaff, is by critical experiment and analysis.

Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesis — which is tantamount to knowing nothing. Too much skepticism — especially_ ally rejection of new ideas before they are adequately tested — and you’re not only unpleasantly grumpy, but also closed to the advance of science. A judicious mix is what we need.

And that is what I will strive for. I trust you, my readers, to let me know if I stray too far towards cynicism.

Finally, I want to close with an intentionally provocative observation. About a month ago there was a blowup around here among atheists, in which those who sought accommodation with moderate religious people in order to support the teaching of good science (in this specific case, evolution) were tarred with the insult, “Neville Chamberlain-style appeasers.” It’s a term I utterly loathe because I consider it a thinly veiled form of argumentum ad Nazi-ium. Indeed, I loathe it so much that I sicced the Hitler Zombie on Richard Dawkins and Larry Moran for using that term. Now, consider this quote from Carl Sagan from my favorite of his books, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

Of course, many religions, devoted to reverence, awe, ethics, ritual, community, family, charity, and political and economic justice, are in no way challenged, but rather uplifted, by the findings of science. There is no necessary conflict between science and religion. On one level, they share similar and consonant roles, and each needs the other.

I submit to you that Carl Sagan, were he alive today, would probably been labeled a “Neville Chamberlain appeaser” by some. I would also submit that that is not a bad thing. Consider this further passage from Demon-Haunted World:

In theological discussion with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central tenet of their faith were disproved by science. When I put this question to the Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no conservative or fundamentalist religious leaders do: in such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to change.

Even, I asked, if it’s a really central tenet, like (I searched for an example) reincarnation?

Even then, he answered.

However, he added with a twinkle, it’s going to be hard to disprove reincarnation.

Plainly, the Dalai Lama is right. Religious doctrine that is insulated from disproof has little reason to worry about the advance of science. The grand idea, common to many faiths, of a Creator of the Universe is one such doctrine – difficult alike to demonstrate or dismiss.

Towards religion that does not intrude itself into science and make claims that are clearly not true, like Sagan, I tend to take a “live and let live” attitude. However, note that Sagan’s quote does not require one to roll over when fundamentalist religion launches assaults on science. Indeed, he is essentially stating that, when science conflicts with religion, it is religion, not science, that must change. Also, as Carl Sagan taught us, when it comes to superstition and pseudoscience, often far more can be accomplished with a velvet glove covering the iron fist of reason than can be accomplished with the iron fist alone, all without giving in to pseudoscience and irrationality. And the stakes are high, as Sagan himself stated:

I know that the consequences of scientific illiteracy are far more dangerous in our time than in any time that hss come before. It’s perilous and foolhardy for the average citizen to remain ignorant about global warming, say, or ozone depletion, air pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, topsoil erosion, tropical deforestation, exponential population growth…How can we affect national policy–or even make intelligent decisions in our own lives–if we don’t grasp the underlying issues?…Plainly, there is no way back. Like it or not, we are stuck with science. We had better make the best of it. When we finally come to terms with it and fully recognize its beautÂ¥ and power, we will find, in spiritual as well as in practical matters, that we have made a bargain. strongly in our favor.

Indeed we have, although I despair that we’ll ever convince the majority that this is true. To that end, we could use another Carl Sagan in these times.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading