The Demon-Haunted World - Carl Sagan

Read 07.05.19

“This book is a personal statement, reflecting my lifelong love affair with science.” (25)

I decided to be a Biochemistry major before I came to college. Not because I was a fan of science— it simply aligned well with the pre-med track. At college I debated whether I wanted to pick up another major, in either economics or computer science. Not because I was interested in either field, but because I learned that a single major won’t fill up 16 credits every semester, and I was too lazy to decide which elective courses I wanted to enroll in. By the 2nd semester of my third year I realized that even with the Economics major, my required classes wouldn’t fill up my fourth year schedule. So I decided to minor in Neuroscience. Contrary to the assumption that I was just an overachieving kid, this was the line of thought that led me to pursue 2.5 majors. 

I mention my undergraduate experience because there are a couple takeaways from studying various fields of academia that relate to this book. The first is that the practice of science is not limited to studies of “hard-science.” Just as how the scientific method deduces the relationship between DNA, RNA, and proteins, the same methods of reasoning allows us to deduce the relationship between inflation and unemployment rates (the Phillips curve!). The same creative and skeptical approaches are utilized to further our understanding, to expand the knowledge we hold about the world we reside in and to ultimately guide humanity as we progress through time. The second takeaway relates to the quote below:

“The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in 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, you’re beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. It condemns the skeptics to permanent minority status; whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.” (300)

A healthy dose of skepticism creates good scientists. However, although my experience does not strictly pertain to pseudoscience, I have witnessed levels of skepticism that go beyond the constructive conscience. It is especially trickier to regulate in classes. In upper-level seminar courses, students discuss articles and papers that vary in significance and quality, whether it be in their methodologies or results. The purpose is to identify the good aspects of the paper as well as areas of potential improvement, and to apply the knowledge of budding scientists to real world academia. Easier said than done. In practice, professors may find it difficult to maintain the balance between rewarding young scientists for their opinions and chastising them for their (understandable) ignorance. On one hand, they don’t want to crush the undergraduate confidence that seem to plague fourth year students. On the other hand, some kids make wild, unrealistically critical claims and just don’t know what they’re talking about. 

I believe the latter phenomenon is induced by the same, but weaker, form of unregulated confidence in your own knowledge and understanding that entices people to become followers of pseudoscience. Whether it be astrology, crystal balls, aliens, flat-Earth, or even religion, believers of such phenomena show us that without proper education, logical reasoning or the scientific method cannot stand up against our innately human desires. 

“Pseudoscience speaks to powerful emotional needs that science often leaves unfulfilled. It caters to fantasies about personal powers we lack and long for. In some of its manifestations, it offers satisfaction of spiritual hungers, cures for disease, promises that death is not the end. It reassures us of our cosmic centrality and importance.” (14)

“Nearly everyone in ancient Egypt exhorted the gods to let the Pharaoh live “forever.” These collective prayers failed. Their failure constitutes data.” (277)

Sagan preaches skepticism as an antidote against the pervasive nature of pseudoscientific beliefs. 

“Skepticism must be a component of the explorer’s toolkit, or we will lose our way. There are wonders enough out there without our inventing any.” (59)

Question is, how do we instill skepticism to those adamant in their beliefs? Sagan states that followers of pseudoscience are actually quite similar to followers of science in their curiosity to demystify the world around them. 

“In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.” (298)

This approach, however, does not fully describe the solution. Would tempering our criticism with kindness truly affect their beliefs? Or would they come up with some convoluted explanation to why they remain correct? In other words, although cruel, can these people actually be convinced otherwise? The moral approach would be to assume yes, and try our best to maintain an open dialogue. No intellectual condescension or shunning should occur, as they would only polarize both positions and lead to further disconnect. But what if they can’t be convinced otherwise— what should we do then? 

The rational move would be first to figure out exactly why proponents of pseudoscience are unable to accept the flaws in their argument or the possibility of alternative explanations. Could it be some specific personality trait? Maybe a deformity in a certain brain area? A lack of proper education or introduction to the scientific method? Whatever it may be, we will have to come to a decision whether the obstacle can be overcome. If possible, the next question would be to determine how. If impossible, prevention should be the focus over treatment. A potential prevention method would be to focus on the education of our children. 

“I don’t think science is hard to teach because humans aren’t ready for it, or because it arose only through a fluke, or because, by and large, we don’t have the brainpower to grapple with it. Instead, the enormous zest for science that I see in first-graders and the lesson from the remnant hunter-gatherers both speak eloquently: A proclivity for science is embedded deeply within us, in all times, places and cultures. It has been the means for our survival. It is our birthright. When, through indifference, inattention, incompetence, or fear of skepticism, we discourage children from science, we are disenfranchising them, taking from them the tools needed to manage their future.” (317)

Here, Sagan emphasizes how the application of the scientific method is an innately human feature, and highlights the need for children to familiarize with its practices. I agree with his sentiment. However, there is something about the word “science” that can seem unfamiliar or difficult to approach. 

What is science? In essence, science is simply a series of logical reasoning. Its goal is to identify truth. Its method is to ensure that what is identified is indeed the truth. To me, that is all science is. This would explain why, to some degree, all areas of academia utilize the scientific method to further their understanding. 

As a community, proponents of the scientific method encourage criticisms— findings must be defended against alternative explanations— how else will we know whether what we’ve stumbled upon is true? Just as how criticisms are important, so are differences in opinion. 

“In his celebrated little book On Liberty, the English philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that silencing an opinion is “a peculiar evil.” If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the “opportunity of exchanging error for truth”; and if it’s wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in “its collision with error.” If we know only our own side of the argument, we hardly know even that; it becomes stale, soon learned only by rote, untested, a pallid and lifeless truth.” (430)

[Side Note: the quote above applies to not only science but political views today.]

Overall, The Demon-Haunted World ascribes the prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs to the cultural context that surrounds them and encourages all individuals to be skeptical of the wild claims that obstruct humanity’s path towards understanding the universe we reside in. I will try to keep Sagan’s teachings in mind as I begin my first job as a research technician.

As usual, my favorite snippets are below:

“Books, purchasable at low cost, permit us to interrogate the past with high accuracy; to tap the wisdom of our species; to understand the point of view of others, and not just those in power; to contemplate— with the best teachers— the insights, painfully extracted from Nature, of the greatest minds that ever were, drawn from the entire planet and from all of our history. They allow people long dead to talk inside our heads. Books can accompany us everywhere. Books are patient where we are slow to understand, allow us to go over the hard parts as many times as we wish, and are never critical of our lapses. Books are key to understanding the world and participating in a democratic society.” (357)

“If you grow up in a household where there are books, where you are read to, where parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins read for their own pleasure, naturally you learn to read. If no one close to you takes joy in reading, where is the evidence that it’s worth the effort? If the quality of education available to you is inadequate, if you’re taught rote memorization rather than how to think, if the content of what you’re first given to read comes from a nearly alien culture, literacy can be a rocky road.” (358)

“Perhaps the sharpest distinction between science and pseudoscience is that science has a far keener appreciation of human imperfections and fallibility than does pseudoscience. If we resolutely refuse to acknowledge where we are liable to fall into error, then we can confidently expect that error— even serious error, profound mistakes— will be our companion forever. But if we are capable of a little courageous self-assessment, whatever rueful reflections they may engender, our chances improve enormously.” (21)

“The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more important than the findings of science.” (22)

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” (29)

“An extraterrestrial being, newly arrived on Earth— scrutinizing what we mainly present to our children in television, radio, movies, newspapers, magazines, the comics, and many books— might easily conclude that we are intent on teaching them murder, rape, cruelty, superstituion, credulity, and consumerism. We keep at it, and through constant repetition many of them finally get it. What kind of society could we create if, instead, we drummed into them science and a sense of hope?” (39)

“Their hopes and fears, the excitement of possible discoveries of great import, may overwhelm the usual skeptical and cautious approach of science.” (50)

“Emotions can run so high on a matter about which we really know so little.” (94)

“Perhaps when everyone knows that gods come down to Earth, we hallucinate gods; when all of us are familiar with demons, it’s incubi and succubi; when fairies are widely accepted, we see fairies; in an age of spiritualism, we encounter spirits; and when the old myths fade and we begin thinking that extraterrestrial beings are plausible, then that’s when our hypnogogic imagery tends.” (131)

“The believers take the common elements in their stories as tokens of verisimilitude, rather than as evidence that they have contrived their stories out of a shared culture and biology” (133)

“I think there can very well be psychic rewards in becoming an abductee.” (148)

“Why should we suppose that, of the vast treasure of memories stored in our heads, none of it could have been implanted after the event— by how a question is phrased when we’re in a suggestible frame of mind, by the pleasure of telling or hearing a good story, by confusion with something we once read or overheard?” (168)

“Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.” (172)

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” (223)

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.So the old bamzooles tend to persist as the new ones rise.” (241)

“Baloney, bamboozles, careless thinking, flimflam, and wishes disguised as facts are not restricted to parlor magic and ambiguous advice on matters of the heart. Unfortunately, they ripple through mainstream political, social, religious, and economic issues in every nation. (244)

“Thomas Jefferson and Geroge Washington owned slaves; Albert Einstein and Mohandas Gandhi were imperfect husbands and fathers. The list goes on indefinitely. We are all flawed and creatures of our times. Is it fair to judge us by the unknown standards of the future? Some of the habits of our age will doubtless be considered barbaric by later generations— perhaps for insisting that small children and even infants sleep alone instead of with their parents; or exciting natinoalist passions as a means of gaining popular approval and achieving high political office; or allowing bribery and corruption as a way of life; or keeping pets; or eating animals and jailing chimpanzees; or criminalizing the use of euphoriants by adults; or allowing our children to grow up ignorant.” (259)

“In theological discussions 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 current, Fourteenth, 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.” (277-278)

“Consider the mainstream religions. We are enjoined in Micah to do justly and love mercy; in Exodus we are forbidden to commit murder; in Leviticus we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves; and in the Gospels we are urged to love our enemies. Yet think of the rivers of blood spilled by fervent followers of the books in which these well-meaning exhortations are embedded.” (290)

“At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes— an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. The collective enterprise of creative thinking and skeptical thinking, working together, keeps the field on track.” (304)

“Bright, curious children are a national and world resource. They need to be cared for, cherished, and encouraged. But mere encouragement isn’t enough. We must also give them the essential tools to think with.” (323)

“Science, I maintain, is an absolutely essential tool for any society with a hope of surviving well into the next century with its fundamental values intact— not just science as engaged in by its practitioners, but science understood and embraced by the entire human community. And if the scientists will not bring this about, who will?” (336)

“In American polls in the early 1990s two-thirds of all adults had no idea what the “information superhighway” was; 42 percent didn’t know where Japan is; and 38 percent were ignorant of the term “holocaust.” But the proportion was in the high 0s who had heard of the Menendez, Bobbitt, and O. J. Simpson criminal cases; 99 percent had heard that the singer Michael Jackson had allegedly sexually molested a boy. The United States may be the best-entertained nation on Earth, but a steep price is being paid.” (376)

“Urging major practical inventions while discouraging curiosity-driven research would be spectacularly counterproductive.” (384)

“Of course there are many pressing problems facing our nation and our species. But reducing basic scientific research is not the way to solve them. Scientists do not constitute a voting bloc. They have no effective lobby. However, much of their work is in everybody’s interest. Backing off from fundamental research constitutes a failure of nerve, of imagination, and of that vision thing that we still don’t seem to have a handle on.” (400)

“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… 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?” (416)

“The unprecedented powers that science now makes available must be accompanied by unprecedented levels of ethical focus and concern by the scientific community— as well as the most broadly based public education into the importance of science and democracy.” (419)

“If we can’t think for ourselves, if we’re unwilling to question authority, then we’re just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.” (434)