Question for those who have read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World

[jk143]

I came across the following quotes on another website:

CSICOP [Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] is imperfect. It's hostile to every new idea... will go to absurd lengths in its knee-jerk debunking, is a vigilante organization, a New Inquisition.

—Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

—Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

I have not yet read this book, but am looking forward to doing so. From hearing others talk about the book, the quotes don't strike me as being correct. Are they taken out of context or something?

Thanks in advance.

James

[Brown]

The quotes don't look right to me, but I don't have my copy of Dr. Sagan's book handy.

I believe Dr. Sagan did mention CSICOP, but the words "vigilante" and "Inquisition" sure don't sound like him. I believe this book is indexed, so it should be a simple matter to check the indexed references to CSICOP.

If I recall correctly, Dr. Sagan does say at one point that some paranormal claims deserve serious study. Whether they are the particular claims listed, I cannot say.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by jk143
I have not yet read this book, but am looking forward to doing so. From hearing others talk about the book, the quotes don't strike me as being correct. Are they taken out of context or something?

Thanks in advance.

James Somewhat out of context, yes:

However, immediately after the quote in question, Sagan writes: "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true." They "have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." He then goes on to relate how in the mid-1970s he found himself unable to sign a manifesto called "Objections to Astrology" not because he thought astrology has any validity, but "because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian."http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter19.html

Anything else? :p

[TLN]

Originally posted by jk143
I came across the following quotes on another website:

Well, without a page number this is going to be a big rough.

As for context, I believe Sagan goes on to say while we should study these matters fairly, he doesn't actually expect we'll find anything. I'm looking now. (Interestingly enough, I was already doing so to collect quotes to beat Randi over the head with.)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Don't know about the first quote. The second quote appeared in The Conscious Universe, by Dean Radin. He doesn't bother to quote the rest of the paragraph:

I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don’t), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course I could be wrong.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Holy cow, that first quote is so out of context. Here, on page 299:
I've been affiliated with it since its beginning. It's acronym, CSICOP, is pronounced "sci-cop"---as if it's an organization for scientists performing a police function. Those wounded by CSICOP's analyses sometimes make such a complaint: It's hostile to every new idea, they say, will go to absurd lengths in its knee-jerk debunking, is a vigilante organization, a New Inquisition, and so on.

CSICOP is imperfect. In certain cases such a critique is to some degree justified. But from my point of view CSICOP serves an important social function ...

Did you find that quote in Henry Bauer's review of the book?

~~ Paul

[TLN]

Originally posted by Brown
If I recall correctly, Dr. Sagan does say at one point that some paranormal claims deserve serious study. Whether they are the particular claims listed, I cannot say.

Sagan was all about this actually. He didn't like the scientific community simply waving their hand and saying "bah!" towards paranormal claims. He thought that actual study and experimentation of the claims was a good way to teach science and show that there's nothing to these claims; while simply ignoring them only allows them to grow and claim more minds and feeds the notion that scientists are "scared of the truth."

[jk143]

Hey thanks All! I appreciate your quick responses. I am pleased that you were able to verify my suspicions about the quotes.


James

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Jk143, you should email whoever owns the sites where those quotes were. Point out how flagrantly they are misquoting Sagan.

~~ Paul

[Brown]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Holy cow, that first quote is so out of context. Man, is it ever! Dr. Sagan was summarizing the views of others who dislike the organization, but the quote is "edited" to make it appear as though they were Dr. Sagan's own personal views or views that he endorsed, when the exact opposite is true.

I have edited my own post to add: Nice job, Paul!

[Clancie]

Not very honest to quote Sagan and leave out that crucial part of his sentence, "they say..."!

What website was it? :confused:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Clancie
Not very honest to quote Sagan and leave out that crucial part of his sentence, "they say..."!

What website was it? :confused:

Hi Clancie!

We'll make a skeptic out of you yet. :D

[jk143]

Originally posted by Clancie
Not very honest to quote Sagan and leave out that crucial part of his sentence, "they say..."!

What website was it? :confused:

Sorry about neglecting to reference the site. I was doing some general searching on PSI issues and found it HERE (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2271/fs-psi.html)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Jk143, you should email whoever owns the sites where those quotes were. Point out how flagrantly they are misquoting Sagan.

~~ Paul I tried - it can't be done. :(

[Clancie]

Bjorn,

He has an email address and seems to welcome comments. What happens when you try to correct the quote?


And, hi Sundog! Welcome back :). And, remember? I am already a skeptic...I am...I am! (Well, imo, anyway. :) ).

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Clancie
Bjorn,

He has an email address and seems to welcome comments. What happens when you try to correct the quote?


And, hi Sundog! Welcome back :). And, remember? I am already a skeptic...I am...I am! (Well, imo, anyway. :) ). 1. The guestbook is not working
2. Tried e-mail, but it was returned: Delivery failure

:(

[epepke]

If idiot liars can do this kind of thing to a text, including reversing the order of statements and omitting ellipses, I always wonder why they don't go the whole hog?

Kate Millett, I think, started this modern form of literary criticism, for which she received a PhD from Columbia University, but at least she used ellipses when trying to make quotes from Norman Mailer seem to say the opposite of what was really said.

So why don't idiot liars produce statements like the following?

I...eat...human...brains...for...lunch.
--Carl Sagan

[Hellbound]

Huntsman waits excitedly for Ed to post a recipe for "Human Brain Stew"

:D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yup, I try emailing that idiot, too. Rejected.

Can we start quoting Sheldrake and Schwartz like that? Ooh, the things we could do: "I ... cannot ... design ... experiments."

~~ Paul

[Darat]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Huntsman waits excitedly for Ed to post a recipe for "Human Brain Stew"

:D

I can categorically state I've never eaten human brain, I think.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Darat
I can categorically state I've... eaten human brain...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Yahweh (from here Where do you draw the line? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=36136) )

..my personal thoughts are a bit like this:

…. the procedures are safe, scientifically valid, and realistic … because I …. can change this cup of water into solid gold using only the power of my mind...

…the scientific method is …. close-minded, …. it prevents …tests ….




What a nut case ;)

[pupdog]

Jk143, you should email whoever owns the sites where those quotes were. Point out how flagrantly they are misquoting Sagan. As has been suggested, this oftentimes does not work. A good example is at talkorigins, a discussion about blood associated with unfossilized dinosaur bones. The more the creationists were corrected, the more they misquoted, firmly establishing a completely erroneous notion. Kind of like Darwin's deathbed recantation.

[CFLarsen]

We don't even have to look outside this board to find people misquoting Sagan. Steve Grenard has done it, too.

You're right, Clancie. Not very honest.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

I suspect that's a dead site. It appears to have gone unmaintained since 1999 or so. Dead eMail address, dead guest book also point to this being a dead site.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by jk143
I came across the following quotes on another website:



I have not yet read this book, but am looking forward to doing so. From hearing others talk about the book, the quotes don't strike me as being correct. Are they taken out of context or something?

Thanks in advance.

James

I have read the book at least 3 times and have read sections of it even more. I do not recall coming across anything with a flavor even remotely like this quotation. In fact, he praises CSICOP in the book. The quotation is bogus, IMO.

[Toastrider]

As noted above, the quote is there. It's just edited and taken out of context (the remarks about CSICOP are of Sagan quoting what other people have said about it, not himself).

Not dissimilar from certain elements in the media, but let's not open THAT can of worms...

--Toasty

[epepke]

Originally posted by Toastrider
As noted above, the quote is there. It's just edited and taken out of context (the remarks about CSICOP are of Sagan quoting what other people have said about it, not himself).

Not just out of context. They reversed the order of some sentences. E.g. Sagan's statement that CSICOP was imperfect follows all the closed-minded blah blah blah, but the "editors" made it come before.

Reversing the order of quotes is something even the usual class of slimy scum will not resort to and goes far beyond editing.

[Kopji]

From the Rampart 2271 home page comes this challenge:

It is likely believed, and perhaps rightly so, that a large segment of the world population is not ready to accept these startling new realities, that they would shake the very foundations of society. If the information were to be released too quickly, it could threaten the stability of the world economy, religious institutions, individual's personal belief systems, and the public's belief that their government is able to protect them. Anyone who disagrees with this need only look to the mass panic and suicides resulting from the 1938 Orson Welles broadcast of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds. One can argue there are probably many other technological, political, and warfare-related reasons the information pertaining to these subjects has been kept secret and guarded closely for so long.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2271/

As they recommended I looked up all the suicides resulting from the War of the World broadcast. There were none, but I already knew that. There is a nice article by Robert Bartholomew in csicop about the incident.

Yet there is only scant anecdotal evidence to suggest that many listeners actually took some action after hearing the broadcast, such as packing belongings, grabbing guns, or fleeing in motor vehicles. In fact, much of Cantril's study was based on interviews with just 135 people. Bainbridge (1987) is critical of Cantril for citing just a few colorful stories from a small number of people who panicked. According to Bainbridge, on any given night, out of a pool of over a million people, at least a thousand would have been driving excessively fast or engaging in rambunctious behavior. From this perspective, the event was primarily a news media creation. Miller (1985, 100) supports this view, noting that while the day after the panic many newspapers carried accounts of suicides and heart attacks by frightened citizens, they proved to have been unfounded but have passed into American folklore. Miller also takes Cantril to task for failing to show substantial evidence of mass flight from the perceived attack (1985, 106), citing just a few examples and not warranting an estimate of over one million panic- Americans.
http://www.csicop.org/si/9811/martian.htmlstricken


A popular myth was used as primary evidence to support the reasoning. HEY, I WAS TOLD TO LOOK.

What they really mean, is that I am a bad person because I do not trust what they say. I was not supposed to actually look up the reference. This untrusting attitude will harm me in life, and lead others away from the Truth…

[SFB]

Originally posted by Toastrider


...
Not dissimilar from certain elements in the media, but let's not open THAT can of worms...

--Toasty

Oh, go on ..... check the beginning of Chapter 11, for example.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Brown
Man, is it ever! Dr. Sagan was summarizing the views of others who dislike the organization, but the quote is "edited" to make it appear as though they were Dr. Sagan's own personal views or views that he endorsed, when the exact opposite is true.


In the very same book, Sagan even complains about an earlier incident in which Geraldo Rivera, holding a copy of one of his articles, quotes Sagan as asserting that hundreds of people are abducted by aliens every minute. Technically, he did say that...but the statement was meant to be ironic (which would be obvious to anyone who read the sentence immediately following that one - "It's surprising more of the neighbors haven't noticed").

[WWu777]

Originally posted by jk143
I came across the following quotes on another website:



I have not yet read this book, but am looking forward to doing so. From hearing others talk about the book, the quotes don't strike me as being correct. Are they taken out of context or something?

Thanks in advance.

James

W: I have the book. I don't remember the first quote above, but I do remember seeing the second quote.

By the way, Sagan's book is a reversed form of Christian fundamentalism. He also paints skeptics as a candle in the dark, while all the paranormal believers are in the dark. That's what Christian fundamentalists do too, when they claim all the nonbelievers are in the dark.

Also, Sagan pretends to be an expert on alien abductions, yet he never investigates or interviews the abductees like Budd Hopkins and other researchers did, which convinced them. Another example of an armchair quarterback.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by WWu777

By the way, Sagan's book is a reversed form of Christian fundamentalism. He also paints skeptics as a candle in the dark, while all the paranormal believers are in the dark. That's what Christian fundamentalists do too, when they claim all the nonbelievers are in the dark.


The difference, of course, is that Sagan has evidence to back up his claims, whereas the Christian fundamentalists do not.

Oh! How we always forget that!