Heaving Dead Cats: sagan

Here is another installment of my favorite parts of The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

It's disheartening to discover government corruption and incompetence, for example; but is it better not to know about it? Whose interest does ignorance serve? If we humans bear, say, hereditary propensities toward the hatred of strangers, isn't self-knowledge the only antidote?

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?

In the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche, as so many before and after, decries the "unbroken progress in the self-belittling of man" brought about by the scientific revolution. Nietzsche mourns the loss of "man's belief in his dignity, his uniqueness, his irreplaceability in the scheme of existence."

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Which attitude is better geared for our long-term survival? Which gives us more leverage on our future? And if our naive self-confidence is a little undermined in the process, is that altogether such a loss? Is there not cause to welcome it as a maturing and character-building experience? (pg 12)

I couldn't agree more. Humans seem to be developing an even stronger sense of egotism and narcissism as time goes on. I see it in so many people today. Thinking the whole Universe is created for us only serves to increase that delusional sense of entitlement.

Happy (slightly belated) Carl Sagan Day! Yesterday was Carl's birthday and that's a good reason to celebrate the wonders of the Cosmos. Not that we need an excuse.

As you may remember, I'm reading The Demon-Haunted World and this is my second post sharing some of Carl's most inspiring and thought-provoking passages.

Science arouses a soaring sense of wonder. But so does pseudoscience. Sparse and poor popularizations of science abandon ecological niches that pseudoscience promptly fills. If it were widely understood that claims to knowledge require adequate evidence before they can be accepted, there would be no room for pseudoscience. But a kind of Gresham's Law prevails in popular culture by which bad science drives out good. (p 6)

How depressingly true. So what can we do about it? What can you and I do about it? We can drive this point home, to everyone we know, that knowledge requires adequate evidence. Then follow up with what adequate evidence means (such as, not (usually) anecdotes, etc).

This is something you can do even on Facebook, or with your friends and family, or as a blogger. We can all help spread this important information that is obviously not getting to most people.