Rating: 
Summary: UFOs, Ghosts, and Carl Sagan
Review: Dr. Carl Sagan, scientific populists and evangelists for forensic science and the scientific model of expierment, has written and entertianing, needed, smart, yet, at times flawed book. Regardless of my concerns with some of Sagan's assertions, this book, all in all, is a much needed counter balance to all the "demon-haunted" nonsense that is still prevelant, if not more so now than ever, in the Western world. As one reviewer noted has already noted, the strenth in this book is the first half of the book. Here Sagan is at his best as he demonstrates many of teh false and utterly lack of critical thinking that takes place in the modern world in regards to UFO's, ghost, divination, faith-healers, etc. Of course, Sagan is always waiting to pounce on some religious beliefs, but surprisingly he also does point out some of the falws of scientist when they make assumptions based on strongly held views without using the sientific model (he even allows us, the reader, to view some of his 'goofs'.) His chapter on "Baloney Detection", which is basically a crash course on critical thinking is very good and written at a 'lay persons' level. Though at times, Sagan (especially in his assumption that Darwanian evolution is scientific, it is not, but is a philosophy based on naturalism)seems to forget some of these rules, the points are well written and should be followed. Also, it is too hard to get mad at him, after all, he freely gives the information one needs to see through his errors. Carl Sagan is one of those people, though I stronly disagree with his interpretation on biological maro-evolution and his assertions in theology, I have always admired his ability to write and make scientific jargon easy for all to understand. Though I take issue with some things such as his use of quotes taht set=up a straw man, something he mentions not to do, I found the overall content needed for all people.
Rating: 
Summary: Essential reading for any thinking person
Review: This is not, in the conventional sense, a "science book." When most people think of a book on science, they envision tedious tomes full of dry, lifeless facts and figures: "And events x and y happened on day z. Mix chemicals a and b and they change to color c." If you went to a public high school in the United States, you probably understand precisely what I mean. Instead, this is a vibrant, wonder-filled work written by one of the twentieth century's very best science writers. Dr. Sagan's joy and awe are contagious; you find yourself caught up in his enthusiasm. His writing is always accessible, but never insults the intelligence of its reader-- you will find neither arcane technical jargon nor conspicuous "dumbing down." Furthermore, this is not a book of individual science facts, but rather the mechanism of how science works, an elegantly simple illustration of the scientific method. More importantly, examples are given of how critical thinking skills can and should be applied to a number of other realms, helping us to determine what is factual, what is possible, what is dubious, and what is false. I recommend this book to anybody with an interest in science, but particularly to laypeople interested in learning more about the methods of science itself. It's also a great choice for gifted children and young adults.
Rating:
Summary: More than one candle power...
Review: I was first introduced to Carl Sagan, along with most of the public, through the series 'Cosmos'. Perhaps I can be forgiven for not having heard of him prior to that, given I was twelve years old at the time. It became very apparent in that series, and all subsequent writings, that Sagan was a man of science, to his very core. I have known physicists and scientists of other fields who have embraced denominational and religious tenets, and followed other faith structures (albeit usually with modifications to the theological framework, which in fact puts them in company with their non-scientific intellectual companions). Not so for Sagan. It became clear to me, almost from the beginning his series, that science, the religion of rationality, was his religion. He worshipped the Cosmos, his dogma was the principle of rationality, experimentation and verification, and his heresies included the various irrational parts of the world, which comprise a good deal of popular culture (in every society) and, ultimately, much of what is commonly called religion. Sagan's book, 'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark', is therefore, by an large, Sagan's Book of Heresies. Unlike many books of heresies throughout history, however, this is no simple text of dogmatic pronouncements, a list of things to avoid or distrust. This book has reasoning, research, and history. Sagan points out that even religious structures, who rely heavily on irrational aspects (revelation and inspiration) have certain guidelines of rationality by which to test these aspects. 'A 1517 papal bull distinguishes between apparitions that appear "in dreams or divinely". Clearly, the secular and ecclesiatical authorities, even in times of extreme credulity, were alert to the possibilities of hoax and delusion.' Sagan explores issues of UFO abduction stories, ghosts and 'saintly' appearances (how does one determine if it is truly the image of the Virgin Mary in the glass, or just a coincidental pattern in the sunlight and oily coating of the glass?). Sagan discounts the veracity of most (if not all) such happenings, not only due to the lack of rationality, emotional issues and delusions of the 'experiencers', but also due to the assistance of those in established positions of power who promote such things. For Sagan, science is a 'golden road' that can raise people out of poverty and backwardness into a greater awareness of the world and universe in which they live. Material progress is dependent upon scientific knowledge; likewise, proper use and direction of this progress requires scientific and environmental awareness. Science for Sagan touches the deepest yearnings of human thought. Sagan also postulates a positive link between scientific advance and democratic values (the political theology Sagan believes). There are a few problems with this reasoning--Sagan does not give religion its due in the course of helping to develop philosophical and cultural development in the course of history. While it is true that religion and science have been at odds in the West in past millennium a number of times, this may have more to do with political realities than true rationality. Astronomy, Sagan's own particular field, began in aid of astrology; technology, physics, and chemistry most likely also began to be developed in earnest in suport of religious programmes. Sagan does not mention the fact that both the Carolingian and Italian Renaissance periods showed great flowering in scientific knowledge without a democracy in sight. These caveats having been said, Sagan's reasoning throughout is elegantly crafted, and well written, with a strong historical underpinning to his reasoning, and an eye toward future developments. Ultimately, Sagan cautions against science becoming the domain of an elite few. 'In all uses of science, it is insufficient--indeed it is dangerous--to produce only a small, highly competent, well-rewarded priesthood of professionals. Instead, some fundamental understanding of the findings and methods of science must be available on the broadest scale.' Perhaps we are entering a period for science similar to that of when printing presses revolutionised the interactions of people with religion by making scriptures readily accessible; are we about to enter a reformation of science, in which it is reclaimed by the people? No longer will there be a single 'catholic' faith of science (and science relies as heavily on faith principles as any religion), but a multiplicity of scientific denominations which we can only speculate about today. Sagan's book provokes questions and provides answers, as any good scientific text, popular or technical, should do. 'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark' is full of Sagan's rational-oriented philosophy, in concert with so much of the underpinnings of Western culture (even its religious frameworks of theology, though Sagan does not like to admit this), and yet, somehow culture loses its way occasionally, and it is up to the professionals, be they scientists or priests, to help education and illuminate the world anew, to provide the candle in the dark. May all such professionals find a common ground upon with to stand, so to better steady the foundation of all.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor Research Equals Poor Thesis
Review: When my friend the atheist brought this book into work, he was overwhelmed by its power. "You've got to read this." he said. I gave it a shot. Sagan's basic premises is to show how even in today's world the masses are still fooled by tabloid headlines about aliens and ghosts. He shows how people use double think and are fooled by the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" theory. However, Sagan suffers from the same flaws. There is not enough space to point to all of his errors, so just a few examples. Most of his errors are the result of poor research. Sagan jumps on the overcrowded bandwagon of accusing Pius XXII of conspiring with Hitler. Like all propionates of this theory he offers no evidence to back his insult. Another example, he claims John Wycliff was executed because he translated the Bible into English. His account id patently untrue, Wycliff was executed because he fabricated passages which cited him as the leader of the church. Most of the book is endless diatribes against the two groups he hates most, Catholics and Republicans. He attempts to draw a comparison between tabloid headlines and religious beliefs. Example, he compares a tabloid story about NASA hearing voices in space the to belief that Mary appeared in Lourdes France. Lourdes is based solely on faith, where as the tabloid headline is based on nothing. Anther diatribe is on the Star Wars space program. While Sagan can disagree that Star Wars was practical, he puts the plan in that same realm as the tabloids. Stars Wars never happened but if the Cold War had continued it might have been put into action. Sagan's research is poor and his thesis is intentionally insulting.
Rating:
Summary: Sagan comes through again
Review: Sagan is a breath of fresh air. He calls 'em like he sees 'em, noting, for example, that "religions are the state-protected nurseries of pseudoscience." This book is a call to action, making a strong case that we must encourage the scientific method and question what people tell us, particularly our leaders. The book is also funny as it explores alien abductions and other cons over the years. I always get freshly inspired after reading Sagan because he truly appreciated (and conveyed) the wonder and the infinite possibilities of science.
Rating:
Summary: It's a well written book with some WRONG predictions
Review: Noting when this book was written, the author seems to have fallen into some lines of reasoning that I've heard many times before. Because he takes so many directions throughout the book, I'll pick a few germane examples and go with them. 1. "All the good jobs (manufacturing) have gone South. Or have been driven right out of the country." The economists will tell you that this is the normal scheme of things in improving productivity. He does not make any policy recommendations about it, but comes *that* close to so doing. 2. "The Japanese/ Europeans are overtaking us in science. We've invested too much damned money in defense, and their economies are booming because of their better directed funds." Later proven to be 150% wrong. You can have as many well educated people as you want, but if you have out-of-control labor unions (Germany) or efficiency draining protectionism (Japan), or a smothering public sector (France) then it won't much matter. And we've seen what happened in the past (China), when a country weakens its military to the point of ineffectiveness at the behest of some intellectual. It *seems* to make so much sense to invest as much possible in education. But when that and other things are done in practice (at the expense of the military/ other things), does that make so much sense? 3. "The Americans scored lower than the British and Canadians on science tests in categories X, Y, and Z." But strange enough: Having lived in Britain, the government sends all these well trained chemists to universities where they graduate to find..... NO jobs! And the income per capita in GB is about 35% less than it is the USA. The gap is not quite so wide between us and the Western Europeans. According to The Economist, the gap between the US and Western Europe has widened over time, with our having a GDP per capita 54% higher than theirs. The Eastern Europeans likely score higher than the Americans on science exams of many sorts. But what does that mean directly in terms of income? 4. "Communism was just an 'experiment' tried in China that failed." We can think of a lot of things that are "experiments," and yield catastrophic results. And how long they take to fix. The regime of Mao has made mistakes that could take decades (at least 5) to fix even if China reversed course this afternoon and tried to fix it. (A sex imbalance created by a one child policy that was create to counteract a policy of "every mouth comes with two hands" is going to spell doom for China in the next 20 years or so.) Does it make sense to stick with what we know that works, or to try to experiment with this and that without any idea of the long term cost? It's not like working in a chemical lab. You can't throw away the chemicals and start again without anyone saying too much about it. 5. "Government regulation/ action is the 'solution' to this or that educational problem." But is it just my imagination, or is the way paved for some special interest group (the NEA, for example) to systematically create labor conditions that are in their interest? There is not one state in which there is not a tenure system at the K-12 level. But the Catholic schools (not part of the nationwide convention of tenure) seem to produce much better students. But the NEAs members have some very cushy jobs, paid for by American taxpayers. It seems like the moral of the book is "Do these things X, Y, and Z. And they'll all lead to something that creates a demand for more of my services as an academic/ educator." It *seems* like it is better to have a population that knows less than more. But when a "literati" public is more likely to elect leaders who are "intellectual," there is nothing but problems. France: Let's go on strike about this or that every month. Britain: Let's have health care that is "free" (at the point of service) and then wonder why we have to inject money into it every other week to keep it from collapsing. (The dental care there [...]. I've experienced this first hand.) The book is so well written. But the later topics are too broad for him to actually offer case studies on the things that he comes very near to suggesting are good ideas. Draw the appropriate lesson from this book: Just because an academic says it smoothly, it ain't necessarily true.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but not that good.
Review: First off I'm a liberal atheist, and a fairly cranky one at that. The ability of people to have beliefs that fly in the face of all reason and evidence never ceases to amaze me. So, I basically agreed with much of Sagan's thesis before I picked up the book. The problem is that this book is not terribly well written or planned. Sagan bounes along haphazardly through many subjects, each of them on their own worthy of discussion, but with only the most superficial connection between them. Personally, I would have much prefered a more rigorous, dry approach to the topics he discuss. Such a book would not be very successful with a larger audience, which is a part of the very problem Sagan bemoans in this book. All that said, if this book increases one person's skepticism it accomplished a worthwhile function. I'm sure for the truely inquiring there's a much better book, but I have yet to read it.
Rating:
Summary: There are better (and shorter!) books on the subject
Review: This may be a good intro to skeptical thought, but it falls short by stretching points so thin that they break. Sagan didn't know when to stop while trying to make his points. Martin Gardners's "Fads and Fallicies in the Name of Science" does a far better job addressing psuedo-science by staying on solid ground, and by making the same points in a hundred less pages.
Rating:
Summary: Easy breezy Sagan Style-great for a begginer
Review: I read this book at the urging of someone who knew that I was cementing my beliefs in the non existence of an almighty, omnipotenent God. As a child raised in a religious manner, I had my doubts even at that young age. I suspected that there are explainations on why we are who we are and why we belief in such things. I have never heard of Carl Sagan or have never read any of his books. So this was my first exposure to his style of writing. I think it takes more courage to investigate scientific explanations to the existence of man than just believing some long haired guy flying around in the heavens has control over everything over us naughty little humans. And this book is a wonderful introduction. You can't help but notice the ease in the way Sagan takes you through his theories and backs it up with factual evidences. He corelates the inquistions and witch hunts by the catholic church and the more modern hysterias over E.T.'s. And ofcourse all throught out the book, Sagan punctuates it with humorous antidotes and wit. I plan to read it again after I have read other similar books. I consider myself the everyday working class citizen with kids, soccer practices, bills and mortguage but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate stuff like this. I guess that's what makes Carl Sagan one of the greatest science populizer. It makes me even sadder that he is dead.
Rating:
Summary: The Essential Sagan
Review: Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark" ought to be the first book read by anyone interested in the multitude of pseudo-scientific and Not-So-New Age topics and phenomena. It is a simple primer on beliefs systems, the concept of 'credo consolans' -basing beliefs not on evidence, but on the fact they make us feel good -and the absolute need for the denizens of a precipitously ever-changing world to be able to discriminate between the wheat and the chaff within the cascade of information with which we are flooded each day.
This book does nothing less than provide a reliable, effective, and simple method for evaluating new information.
I have a small set of perhaps ten titles which I reread at least once yearly, and this book is at the top of that list. I strongly suggest the openminded reader add it to his or her shelf.
|
