![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Sagan on Skepticism
From Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World:
“The business of skepticism is to be dangerous. Skepticism challenges established institutions. If we teach everybody, including, say, high school students, habits of skeptical thought, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOs, aspirin commercials, and 35,000-year-old channelees. Maybe they’ll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they’ll challenge the opinions of those in power. Then where would we be?”
At first blush, this seemed like a great quote. But then I spotted the line where he said, “Perhaps they’ll challenge the opinions of those in power.” Why just the opinions? Why won’t this line of thought actually challenge those in power themselves? What happens when we turn these skills against scientists and science-champions like Sagan? More importantly, is there any evidence that skepticism directed at the existence of UFO’s leads to skepticism in anything outside the paranormal? I frankly haven’t seen any. That’s like saying: “If we train people to poop in toilets, we may soon have them shitting everywhere!” In actuality, they will most likely remember your training and refuse to take a shit in anything that doesn’t resemble a toilet. Skepticism is thus effectively contained by restricting it to only one area of inquiry.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
and we can`t shit on carl sagan. he`s dead. (sorry tim, couldn`t resist.) actually i thing sagan was whistling in the dark. he hoped that skepticism was going to be dangerous. if it was he wouldn`t have to say it. he was a gatekeeper. the p.r. guy for science. you had to pass by him if you wanted time in the media. the industry of science unvieled sagan in the debate with velikovski, who`s books sold embarassing amounts of copies and e.v.`s points had to be knocked down before his concepts became discussed at starbucks. much like copernicus allowing bishops a look through his telescope, velikovski came close to heresy.
July 18th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Skeptics of the sort referenced aren’t just eternally skeptical of UFO’s and the paranormal, they are also completely disbelieving with respect to organized religion. But if they openly ridiculed Christian beliefs, say, while belittling its adherents, there would be consequences, severe ramifications of the sort they wouldn’t want to have to deal with. And so their feelings about the irrationality and childishness of religion stay muted. UFO’s and the paranormal make much easier targets.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
i wonder where the hostility of types like james randi comes from.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:20 am
these are my suspicions in regards to james randi: professional magicians, in general, on the entertainment circle stand close to the bottom of the barrel; vaudville throwbacks whose summit of popular influence has long since past. the hey-day of houdini is long past and a david copperfield or a david blaine is a once every fifteen-years phenomenon, an exception to the rule. so what is a professional magician to do to prime the pump of his chosen path to securing food and shelter? well, there is comedy a lá Penn & Teller or there is the path of championing mainstream so-called rationalism (and yes, lately P & T have gone that route, too)…”yes, it’s all tricks and you’re stupid for believing they could be accomplished by any means other than trickery and I’ll show you why; just don’t ask me to show you how ALL the tricks are done.” but part of the draw of traditional stage magic is the suspension of disbelief or at least the possibility that, hey, even though it’s more likely that they’re just engaging in sleight-of-hand, there’s a slim chance that they’re not and wouldn’t that be exciting? so people like randi are caught in a double-bind of sorts. if what stage magicians do is simply a trick it has very limited appeal outside of the curiosity of figuring out how it was done and since most people don’t aspire to being stage magicians (or a particularly higher status pedigree of con-artist for that matter); but if the real thing DOES exist, why bother watching stage magic rather than the genuine article and, if the genuine article does exist and can be mastered, then the career of stage magician has no purpose for exiting whatsoever. part of what drives randi is a disdain for the gullibility of people (the same gullibility which, when indulged by the paying public, allows him to have a career) and, at the same time, a strong sense of protectionism because if real magican’s and psychics are out there, the market for stage magic collapses completely. as it is, with the “astonishing” shit people can see at the movies or on their home TV screens, the market for magicians of randi’s ilk has been on life support for a very, very long time. what’s smarter than piggy-backing onto the credibility of mainstream science and shitting on the rubes?
July 19th, 2005 at 12:32 am
July 19th, 2005 at 12:34 am
(oops, sorry for the double post — UI didn’t act like I was expecting)
It’s closer to saying “If we train people to poop in toilets, they’ll start expecting public cleanliness… and they might start noticing which people spread the most shit around.”
What kind of evidence are you looking for? People trained in critical thinking will tend to apply it as a universal tool.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Well, answer me this: why do people who critically analyze and debunk UFO sightings for a living not critically analyze and debunk corruption in government? I realize some do, but the people who debunk paranormal topics seem to limit it to the paranormal - in my experience.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:48 am
There are already plenty of people analyzing and debunking corruption in government; if both are important to you, and there obviously aren’t enough people doing one, are you going to put your effort into both or the the one that would benefit the most from the effort you can provide? Do you know any skeptics who unquestioningly accept the latest line of government bullshit?
July 19th, 2005 at 12:53 am
That’s a good line of reasoning. In any event, I’m afraid that critical thinking and skeptical skills aren’t being taught at all, never mind just about UFO’s. If they aren’t being taught, how can people learn them outside of a formal educational setting? Those are the bigger issues I’m trying to tackle.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:25 am
There are some good books like How to Lie with Statistics, How to Lie with Maps, and How to Lie with Charts that can show you particular techniques people use for deception. Critical thinking is usually taught in university philosophy departments; I think it should be taught to primary-school children. It’s not like you need a high school diploma to recognize logical fallacies.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:05 am
critical thinking, to be taught in the public schools, would need teachers trained it it!
July 19th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Teaching critical thought won’t matter much. For most people, there is something far more important than critical thinking: social acceptance. They don’t believe in UFOs for the same reason they don’t believe in government corruption, namely, both are considered “conspiracy theory” and people who believe in either are ridiculed.
People will think critically right up to the point that its fashionable. You can be as smug as you want about debunking UFO’s, but how smug can you be in debunking the official 9/11 narrative?
And another thing, these Sagan types seem to intentionally blur the distinction between critical thought and uncritical doubt.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
if public school teachers dealt in critical thinking thier students would grow in an environment of reason as a grounding. i believe a lack of reason/critical thinking is a cause of mental illness. minor neurosis has a basis in irrational thinking which is encouraged through the media. just watch any adverts aimed at children. do you think it`s reasonable to develop an unreasonable expectation in our youth to sell consumer products? how many teenagers can drive a new corvette?, yet the media sells this and many similar images as the most desirable. how many adults beat themselves up constantly because they fail to live up to illogical and irrational expectations?
July 19th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
I think Tim’s right, people are only taught to critically challenge in certain areas. I’ve never had a teacher tell me to not believe the newspaper or a text book or a doctor. I’ve had a few that hinted about not believing the government, but that’s it.
And if you teach people to doubt everything, then you have to eventually teach them to doubt you teaching them to doubt, which gets back to Tim’s point that doubt must eat itself.
July 19th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
i believe in the art of living life. a graceful way of doubting and knowing that comes from practice. waiting until the theory is complete puts life on hold. only those brave enough to be living thier life meanwhile come to thier own conclusions. the answer comes, in part, in how others respond to you over time. we can`t win, we can never lose and nobody gets out alive.
it`s not so much teaching doubt as teaching the formulation of questions. the greek oratory style and the lecture style of modern education doesn`t promote questions. it is the quiet word in one`s ear that is the guide. it is an elusive path. lyall watson`s book supernature is a classic example of reports of the impossible. it is a quiet word, easily missed amongst the trillion books in the bookstore.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
I have and it was one of the sweetest moments of my life. My 11th grade American History teacher the first day of class picked up our textbook and threw it across the room screaming that it was BULLSHIT! I’ve never been the same since.