Where to start with Sagan?

[JAStewart]

My friend recently surprised me by declaring an interest in Carl Sagan. I have a feeling that it has come from the symphony of science videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc) infact I know it is. It surprises me because he's someone who doesn't hold firm views in anything (politics, philosophy, science etc).

With this in mind, what book of Sagans should I tell his brother to get him for Xmas? Having never read any Sagan myself I don't really know! I understand that it is not as complex as the work of say, Hawking, but I don't want to recommend a really complex read.

[Beady]

My own suggestions are The Demon-Haunted World, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, and Pale Blue Dot (illustrated edition). You'll get lots of other recommendations, but I believe the writing is best in these three (Varieties is technically a transcription but, as Ann Druyan says in the forward, Sagan thought and spoke in coherent paragraphs). Also, the subject matter among these three is diverse enough that your friend should find at least one of them of interest.

PS: I'd wait on the video of Cosmos until he's expressed a bit more active an interest.

[figarot]

Cosmos. It'll keep you occupied long enough to discover his other writings.

[LarianLeQuella]

I second Demon Haunted World and Pale Blue Dot. If he likes fiction, Contact was a good read.

I think that Cosmos as a DVD gift set would be more fun. His obvious enthusiasm and measure of his voice were such a delight (although the 1980's production may be a little offputting, and there are some out of date ideas even there).

[Madalch]

Cosmos. The book, rather than the DVD set.

[Checkmite]

I'll have to be a dissenting voice here. I read Demon-Haunted World and was (and remain) thoroughly convinced that it was one of the coolest books ever written. But...

...I watched Cosmos. And while Sagan The Writer is pretty darn cool, Sagan On TV was...oddly wandering and just kinda weird. And a lot of Sagan quotes are just senseless to me. Take this one, that everybody seems to cherish has some deep pearl of ineffable wisdom:

Quote:

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.

To me, that sentence is silly and there's nothing about it that demonstrates any kind of special intuition; it sounds like one of those quotes screenwriters put into the mouths of their characters to make them sound "deep". It reminds me of an equally-silly line I saw in a war movie once that goes something like "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it," which sounds wise until you realize that if war weren't terrible, there'd really be nothing wrong with being fond of it.

[Undesired Walrus]

Cosmic Connection.

[decojuicer]

Demon Haunted World for sure. Probably one of the best books that I've ever read. It gave me a whole new outlook on critical thinking.

I remember watching Cosmos with my Dad years ago. The DVD box set would be very cool. "Billions and billions" of props for this book.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I'll have to be a dissenting voice here. I read Demon-Haunted World and was (and remain) thoroughly convinced that it was one of the coolest books ever written. But...

...I watched Cosmos. And while Sagan The Writer is pretty darn cool, Sagan On TV was...oddly wandering and just kinda weird. And a lot of Sagan quotes are just senseless to me. Take this one, that everybody seems to cherish has some deep pearl of ineffable wisdom:

Quote:

Quote:
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.

To me, that sentence is silly and there's nothing about it that demonstrates any kind of special intuition; it sounds like one of those quotes screenwriters put into the mouths of their characters to make them sound "deep". It reminds me of an equally-silly line I saw in a war movie once that goes something like "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it," which sounds wise until you realize that if war weren't terrible, there'd really be nothing wrong with being fond of it.

I don't agree. I can see where you're coming from, because it sounds almost too disconnected. But keep in mind two things:

1) Sagan is trying to talk about very deep and complex aspects of science in a way that's both understandable and entertaining for the layman

2) Sagan has an intuitive sense of poetry and an intuitive sense of humor


In that episode, Sagan was talking specifically about the atom, and the constitution of things. A very simple yet deep question which I'm sure many of us have asked ourselves: How many times can we keep cutting something until we get to the point where we cannot cut anymore? So he uses the example of an apple pie, to bring us with a classic image of something we're used to cutting into pieces. And so, as a way to introduce his exemplification, he starts the episode by saying "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.". Because, if you look deep into it.... it is absolutely true.

[Richard S]

The correct quote is:

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Broca's Brain is a good place to start.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Because, if you look deep into it.... it is absolutely true.

It is not, because if there exists a "you" capable of even knowing what apples are, let alone wanting to make them into a pie, the universe itself must already exist.

[Richard S]

I just went back and looked. That quote is at the beginning of Cosmos Episode 9 - The Lives of the Stars. Sagan's point is that the organic matter in the pie - based on atoms like Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, etc., were mostly made during the death process of stars (main sequence -> red giant -> white dwarf). This is a very strange and counter-intuitive idea, that we are so closely tied to the universe, that the very atoms in our body were made this way. That was his point.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It is not, because if there exists a "you" capable of even knowing what apples are, let alone wanting to make them into a pie, the universe itself must already exist.

It's not meant to be taken literally. It simply sets up the idea of the smallest of the small. I think you have been led away by others who look too deeply into that quote, when it is really just meant to be taken as a jokey and eccentric way of opening the episode.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Richard S

Broca's Brain is a good place to start.

Disagree. Broca was one of Sagan's earlier works And some of it doesn't age well.

[Roboramma]

I'll definitely second Demon Haunted World, it's one of my favourite books, period.

Some other good ones are:
Pale Blue Dot
Billions and Billions
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors
All recommended very highly. I think each of those books made me cry more than once.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I'll definitely second Demon Haunted World, it's one of my favourite books, period.

Some other good ones are:
Pale Blue Dot
Billions and Billions
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors
All recommended very highly. I think each of those books made me cry more than once.

Shadows should definitely be on everyone's reading list, and I understand it was both Sagan and Druyan's favorite. OTOH, for me, it is the most difficult to read. Sagan's other books almost sing, but I've been slogging my way through Shadows for a couple of years now. It's both a shame and mystifying, because I don't know what it is; there are several "aha!" moments, but it just doesn't seem to flow.

[Fnord]

I started with Cosmos, and have been a fan ever since.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

To me, that sentence is silly and there's nothing about it that demonstrates any kind of special intuition; it sounds like one of those quotes screenwriters put into the mouths of their characters to make them sound "deep". It reminds me of an equally-silly line I saw in a war movie once that goes something like "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it," which sounds wise until you realize that if war weren't terrible, there'd really be nothing wrong with being fond of it.

I very much disagree (and agree with the quote, which IIRC is from General Sherman). Power and violence can be addictive, and people can grow fond of it. And if war were not accompanied by blood, gore, stink of loosed bowels, and screaming of the dying -- IOW, if it were more like videogame or, in Sherman's context, more like sniping at ducks, -- then it would be less terrible and a lot more people would grow fond of it. But it would still be a bad thing.

[cwalner]

I would suggest starting at the beginning

Carl Sagan as a Kid

Sorry, I have nothing of actual value to contribute to this discussion.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It is not, because if there exists a "you" capable of even knowing what apples are, let alone wanting to make them into a pie, the universe itself must already exist.

Ok, if we're gonna go down the path of taking things literally then you're still incorrect: If you wanted to have an apple pie made from scratch, you must first have a Universe that contains everything that an apple pie is made of. That's the way to interpret the quote. What Sagan is basically saying is: if we're gonna go step by step through the processes needed to have an apple pie made from scratch, we must start from the very beginning: The origin of the Universe. The mistake you're making is taking the "you must first create the Universe" literally, as if he was saying that "you" must create it (In other words, Creationism). No. He's just talking about what must come first.

In other words:

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

It's not meant to be taken literally. It simply sets up the idea of the smallest of the small. I think you have been led away by others who look too deeply into that quote, when it is really just meant to be taken as a jokey and eccentric way of opening the episode.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

The mistake you're making is taking the "you must first create the Universe" literally, as if he was saying that "you" must create it (In other words, Creationism). No. He's just talking about what must come first.

So you misspoke, and we're not supposed to look "deep into it", but just interpret it at face value.

The problem is, if we look at it the way you now say we should, it becomes a "thanks, Captain Obvious!" quote.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by cwalner

Sorry, I have nothing of actual value to contribute to this discussion.

Curious concept. . .it never stopped me from posting!

I'm with the consensus that Demon Haunted World is a good place to start.

[BenBurch]

I'm not recommending it, but the first book I read by Carl Sagan was "Intelligent Life In The Universe" which he co-wrote with I. S. Shklovskii. I believe I bought it in 1972 and it is part of why I became so interested in Astronomy as a young man.

[Patricio Elicer]

I read Broca's Brain in the early 90's. It was definitely the book that opened my eyes to a new world, the world of reason and science.

[Ginarley]

The Dragons of Eden was my first Sagan experience and it hooked me. I'd throw in a vote for the Demon Haunted World as well.

[båtsman]

My first book by Sagan was Cosmos, but I would as many others recommend The Demon Haunted World.

[stevea]

Carl Sagan was in certain respects a notorious peddler of woo.
Yes he often demonstrated and promoted the attitudes of skepticism and objectivity - except in the cases where he didn't. Most prominently his belief in alien life and other civilizations was not evidence based and was clearly based on dogma as is any religion. In the case of Sagan his degrees in Astronomy and Astrophysics give him no special credibility on the topics of xenobiology(total woo), human evolution, and other topics that comprise key parts of his poular work.

I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in science not indulge heavily in pop-science writers, but rather choose authors who are practising scientists when they write more general books. The amateur should also carefully distinguish writings on experimental vs non-experimental or observational sciences. The magazine 'American Scienticist' (not to be confused w/ 'Scientific American') is readable itself but has great reviews of general science books. I can suggest 'HUMAN: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique', by Gazzaniga, tho' it's a 450pg book - pleasant tho' not light reading.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by stevea

Carl Sagan was in certain respects a notorious peddler of woo.
Yes he often demonstrated and promoted the attitudes of skepticism and objectivity - except in the cases where he didn't. Most prominently his belief in alien life and other civilizations was not evidence based and was clearly based on dogma as is any religion. In the case of Sagan his degrees in Astronomy and Astrophysics give him no special credibility on the topics of xenobiology(total woo), human evolution, and other topics that comprise key parts of his poular work.

I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in science not indulge heavily in pop-science writers, but rather choose authors who are practising scientists when they write more general books. The amateur should also carefully distinguish writings on experimental vs non-experimental or observational sciences. The magazine 'American Scienticist' (not to be confused w/ 'Scientific American') is readable itself but has great reviews of general science books. I can suggest 'HUMAN: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique', by Gazzaniga, tho' it's a 450pg book - pleasant tho' not light reading.

The evidence points to life on Earth being created by natural processes. Evolution provides the mechanism for life becoming more complex. So why is it woo to believe that the processes that occurred here on Earth would have occurred elsewhere in this vast universe?

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by stevea

Carl Sagan was in certain respects a notorious peddler of woo.

Notorious peddler of woo suggests that he was well known for peddling woo. Do you have any evidence of that?

Quote:

Yes he often demonstrated and promoted the attitudes of skepticism and objectivity - except in the cases where he didn't.

He was not perfect, therefore he should be completely ignored.

Quote:

Most prominently his belief in alien life and other civilizations was not evidence based and was clearly based on dogma as is any religion.

His "belief" in alien life was nothing of the sort. For instance:

Originally Posted by Sagan

'm often asked the question, "Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments--there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course as yet there is no compelling evidence for it. And then I'm asked, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" I say, "I just told you what I really think." "Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?" But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgement until the evidence is in.

(This quote has been posted a few times by JoetheJuggler, and he attributes it to: Sagan's introduction to The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal edited by Joe Nickell

In other words? Based on the evidence at hand, he found it likely, but given that the evidence, one way or the other, was scanty, he reserved judgment.

What a total freaking woo.

Quote:

I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in science not indulge heavily in pop-science writers, but rather choose authors who are practising scientists when they write more general books.

Um, Sagan wasn't a practicing scientist?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by stevea

Carl Sagan was in certain respects a notorious peddler of woo.

You meant this post as a joke, right? Just funnin' us?

(BTW, yes I can vouch for the Sagan quote and source Roboramma posted.)

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by stevea

I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in science not indulge heavily in pop-science writers, but rather choose authors who are practising scientists when they write more general books.

Bad advice. Some practicing scientists are crappy writers for the lay audience (and crappy writers, period) and some excellent writers who are not practicing scientists can be very, very effective communicators of the practice of science.

[wufwugy]

I would imagine that Cosmos DVDs should be the place to start since he expressed interest in Sagan on TV in what I believe were Cosmos episodes

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

So you misspoke, and we're not supposed to look "deep into it", but just interpret it at face value.

The problem is, if we look at it the way you now say we should, it becomes a "thanks, Captain Obvious!" quote.

Speak for yourself.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by stevea

In the case of Sagan his degrees in Astronomy and Astrophysics give him no special credibility on the topics of xenobiology(total woo), human evolution, and other topics that comprise key parts of his poular work.

For some of us, like yourself, apparently, a college degree is a destination; for others, it's a starting point. As for the rest of your argument, I believe it can be categorized as similar to (if not actual) faculty-lounge backbiting, and safely dismissed.

Sagan was just as human as anyone else, with his ego, hobby horses and other frailties. I have almost no idea of his worth as an actual scientist, save that he was someone respected enough that he was capable of persuading NASA to perform an action with little to no overt scientific value (May 14, 1990, if I remember correctly, as well as the records). He was, and remains, the best teacher I've ever seen, and not just of science.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

(This quote has been posted a few times by JoetheJuggler, and he attributes it to: Sagan's introduction to The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal edited by Joe Nickell

And then there's this (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/carlsagan.html):

Quote:

I personally have been captured by the notion of extraterrestrial life, and especially extraterrestrial intelligence from childhood. It swept me up, and I've been involved in sending space craft to nearby planets to look for life and in the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence...

It would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false, that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence. Precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful. There have been a few instances in the [past]. We thought we found something, and it always turned out to be explicable...

Obviously total woo, and "...his belief in alien life and other civilizations was not evidence based and was clearly based on dogma as is any religion."

Yeah. Right.

[BobTheDonkey]

Roborama's JoeTheJuggler's Sagan quote is also in The Demon Haunted World (which I'm currently reading, and enjoying, at the moment).

[stevea]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The evidence points to life on Earth being created by natural processes. Evolution provides the mechanism for life becoming more complex. So why is it woo to believe that the processes that occurred here on Earth would have occurred elsewhere in this vast universe?

The idea that life *might* have developed elsewhere is certainly reasonable. Sagan goes farther and makes baloney arguments (one that his own his own "baloney detector" should have informed him about). He regularly on the Cosmos series made statements to the effect that with all the galaxies, stars, planets ... that certainly life must exist elsewhere .. .then a pointless digression into a discussion of other civilisations. That idea shows a fundamental inability to grasp improbable events. It's total woo.

No matter how many possible places for life to have originated, anyone sensible can easily imagine that perhaps the probability of life arising is so low that we may indeed be alone. Lacking any real information about the probability of life spontaneously arising, or the necessary conditions, we must be silent on the topic of the chances for the existence of other life. Now if we find other independent examples of life, or if we discover in detail how to create life from inanimate matter, then we could say something rational about the potential/probabilty for the existence of more alien life. If we understood in great detail how simple life could eventually produce civilisations we might be able to say something useful about that too. We have nearly ZERO information on these topics, and nothing that would make speculation on other life reasonable.

Sagan was WAY far off the deep end, making the assertion that life must exist elsewhere and teaching a 50% baloney course on xenobiology. He lacked the imagination to consider that probabilities may be exceedingly low.

Of course the idea of extraterrestrial life is very intriguing, but making wild speculations and extrapolations as Sagan did is woo ! No, if you want to learn much about science you should try to avoid these wide-eyed quasi-science speculators. It' all quite dated now, but Isaac Asimov was was very good science writer, and unlike Sagan, Asimov was able to distinguish between his science-fiction and scientific writings.

Perhaps you are too young to recall that C.Sagan and Ray Bradbury were instrumental in changing the VikingI Mars landing site. I still recall these two a**-clowns on TV talking about how they thought this site was the most likely for life, and how they hoped to see perhaps spider-like creatures in the images. Of course this really P*ssed-off the real scienticists at NASA who selected a landing site on far more rational criteria. For comparison this is about as ridiculous as if we allowed Oprah to made design decisions on a new launch vehicle. Cult of personality trash.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Notorious peddler of woo suggests that he was well known for peddling woo. Do you have any evidence of that?

He was not perfect, therefore he should be completely ignored.

See above. I did NOT say Sagan should be completely ignored. He was a serious scientific early in his career. When it comes to his popular would outside of his fields of expertise (physics, astrophysics) much of the work is the edge of fiction. It sells well to the sci-fi reader with scientific aspirations, but it isn't science and isn't even rational.

Quote:

His "belief" in alien life was nothing of the sort. For instance:

(This quote has been posted a few times by JoetheJuggler, and he attributes it to: Sagan's introduction to The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal edited by Joe Nickell

In other words? Based on the evidence at hand, he found it likely, but given that the evidence, one way or the other, was scanty, he reserved judgment.

Yes, at times Sagan demonstrated the correct scepticism, and at other times he peddled woo. For example on youtube you'll find a nice interview w/ Charlie Rose where, in the context of discussing religion, Sagan talks disparagingly about beliefs in the absence of evidence. Then at other times he makes arguments completley in the absence of evidence.

On Youtube you'll find Sagan on a Cosmos episode discussing the Drake Equation(aka Sagan equation). Here he sepnds about 10 minutes attempting to quantify his irrational belief in alien civilizations, and foist this nonsense on the public. The Drake equation, is a digression into conditional probability of intelligent life based entirely on baseless estimates of probability, and Sagan should have been ashamed of making this woo argument. The Drake equation is akin to an argument abt the number of angels that can stand in the head of a pin, based on estimates of an angel's foot size - it's WOO it's crud thinking and Sagan jumps onto this hook-line&sinker. Also in many "Cosmos" episodes Sagan makes the assertion that surely life must exists elsewhere - more woo propagation based on his wishful thinking alone.

So DO read/listen to Sagan on cosmology, physics, particle physics, bit please take his writings on xenobiology and evolution with a pound of salt and a followup of rational skepticism tabs.

Quote:

Um, Sagan wasn't a practicing scientist?

Not really after the mid-1970s. He spent most of his time as a pop-sci writer and showman in hois late career. He held a "lab director" title at Cornell starting in 1968, but I have read reports that many faculty there never met him - more of an emeritus title I suspect.

No - if Sagan was a practising astrophysicist, then Michael Crighton is a practising physician.

Originally Posted by Beady

For some of us, like yourself, apparently, a college degree is a destination; for others, it's a starting point.

That's a nice bit of ad hominem, but your attack is crippled by the fact that you are clueless about my background.. I am not an academic tho' I have 5 degrees in physics, math and engineering. I do keep up w/ 8 journals in my fields. Outside my fields, I spent some 6 years recent teaching myself organic chemistry and cell metabolism. I'm currently about half way through 'Principles of Neural Science' by Kandel et al - a well known advanced medical text.

So your ill-informed attempted insult that I have stopped learning is nonsense. I suspect you are the closed-minded dead-end thinker here.

Quote:

As for the rest of your argument, I believe it can be categorized as similar to (if not actual) faculty-lounge backbiting, and safely dismissed.

More nonsense. Sagan IMO was simply a poor science writer, often writing far outside his field of expertise and study, and sometimes inserting his personal pet unsupported ideas in place of good skeptical thinking. His writing style and public persona were/are attractive so it is very sad that the content was not equally good.

As I said before, if you want to actually learn some general science look to the popular writings of people in their fields. Stephen Hawkings general sci books can actually teach you something without the personal-bias driven escapades of Sagan.

Quote:

Sagan was just as human as anyone else, with his ego, hobby horses and other frailties. I have almost no idea of his worth as an actual scientist, save that he was someone respected enough that he was capable of persuading NASA to perform an action with little to no overt scientific value (May 14, 1990, if I remember correctly, as well as the records). He was, and remains, the best teacher I've ever seen, and not just of science.

I didn't diss Sagan based on his ego. Any writer, TV personality must promote themselves as a business issue. Sadly Sagan didn't check his personal biases, especially wrt alien life, at the door when writing his pop-sci content. My view of Sagan's writing on evolutionary biology is that it's junk-science of someone writing far outside his field. Evolutionary biology is a topic particularly subject to unevidenced and poorly reasoned arguments and Sagan takes full advantage of this. I'm not a Dawkin's fan, but his evo-bio arguments are 100 times more coherent and tightly reasoned than Sagan's "Dragons of Eden" type junk.

If Sagan is your best teacher, then you admire someone who at times was a fine and strong advocate of critical thinking and skepticism, and at other times was a proponent of half-baked woo. You really need a better role-model than that.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by stevea

The idea that life *might* have developed elsewhere is certainly reasonable. Sagan goes farther and makes baloney arguments (one that his own his own "baloney detector" should have informed him about). He regularly on the Cosmos series made statements to the effect that with all the galaxies, stars, planets ... that certainly life must exist elsewhere .. .then a pointless digression into a discussion of other civilisations. That idea shows a fundamental inability to grasp improbable events. It's total woo.

No matter how many possible places for life to have originated, anyone sensible can easily imagine that perhaps the probability of life arising is so low that we may indeed be alone. Lacking any real information about the probability of life spontaneously arising, or the necessary conditions, we must be silent on the topic of the chances for the existence of other life. Now if we find other independent examples of life, or if we discover in detail how to create life from inanimate matter, then we could say something rational about the potential/probabilty for the existence of more alien life. If we understood in great detail how simple life could eventually produce civilisations we might be able to say something useful about that too. We have nearly ZERO information on these topics, and nothing that would make speculation on other life reasonable.

We know that the chances of life are non-zero because life did appear on this planet. We understand how natural selection made life on Earth more diverse and complex. We know that the chances of civilization developing are also non-zero, because it happened here.

You are arguing that the chances of life and civilization must be so improbable that it only happened once in this vast universe. That the probability of life and civilization forming in a solar orbit multiplied by the number of stars in the universe is approximately one. Where is your evidence to support this theory?

And even if you hold this theory, why not test it by searching for signs of life outside our own planet?

Originally Posted by stevea

Sagan was WAY far off the deep end, making the assertion that life must exist elsewhere and teaching a 50% baloney course on xenobiology. He lacked the imagination to consider that probabilities may be exceedingly low.

Of course the idea of extraterrestrial life is very intriguing, but making wild speculations and extrapolations as Sagan did is woo ! No, if you want to learn much about science you should try to avoid these wide-eyed quasi-science speculators. It' all quite dated now, but Isaac Asimov was was very good science writer, and unlike Sagan, Asimov was able to distinguish between his science-fiction and scientific writings.

Perhaps you are too young to recall that C.Sagan and Ray Bradbury were instrumental in changing the VikingI Mars landing site. I still recall these two a**-clowns on TV talking about how they thought this site was the most likely for life, and how they hoped to see perhaps spider-like creatures in the images. Of course this really P*ssed-off the real scienticists at NASA who selected a landing site on far more rational criteria. For comparison this is about as ridiculous as if we allowed Oprah to made design decisions on a new launch vehicle. Cult of personality trash.

Actually, I was in college when the Viking I spacecraft was launched. In one of my classes, two scientists actively working on the Viking team discussed the spacecraft and site selection. As I remember, the main issue was trading off the risks of landing with the scientific goals of the lander. The same issue that cropped up in the selection of Moon landing sites. Sagan was on the side of those arguing for riskier sites, but not alone in promoting them.

To give an Earth bound example, landing in the middle of the Utah Salt Flats might be best for assuring spacecraft survival. But not so good for sampling life on this planet.

[Verde]

I'm going to go against the flow here, and advise against The Demon Haunted World as a starter. Remember the OP was asking for recommendations for someone new to the field of critical thinking, and I think there are too many parts that come across as confrontational.

My only evidence for that is my own kids each gave up on it, initially.
Pale Blue Dot, on the other hand, had them captivated. They then went on to read the rest.

Coincidentally, they then also devoured my Terry Pratchett collection.

I guess it may depend on the age of the friend in question.

V.

[Roboramma]

I actually agree with that to some extent Verde. The problem is that it's hard to know what will actually interest the friend. Demon Haunted World might be too confrontational, but if this friend isn't "into" futurism, etc. then Pale Blue Dot might just bore.

To address Stevea, I agree with you that Sagan's writings on evolution are somewhat lacking: there are places where he is simply wrong. For instance, he puts a lot of undue emphasis on group selection (though to be fair, I think at the time it was seen as more valid than it is today). He consistently refers to the species as the unit of selection, which doesn't really work.

Nevertheless, Dragons of Eden is still a good read, relatively accurate, and inspiring. I think that for someone who doesn't know much about the topic going in, what they gain from reading it will be much greater than the harm of any misconceptions it causes.

As to the Sagan was a woo because he believed in extraterrestrial life stuff... I supplied a quote which showed his viewpoint, which is entirely rational. If you have evidence that that quote does not accurately represent his viewpoint, please post it.
(I'll take your word on quotes you post, but I can't access youtube, as I'm behind the great chinese firewall).

I think you attempt to do this when you make mention of the Drake Equation, but I don't see how the drake equation is woo. It says, "here are the factors that, if we knew their values, we could use to estimate the number of civilizations in the galaxy (or in the universe, depending on what values we're using)." He makes it pretty clear that the values that he is giving are anything but certain, but that doesn't mean that we know nothing about them. You and I can disagree about what values he puts into it, but he never suggests that those values are the correct ones, just that if they were, this would be the result.
(at least, going from my memory of the bit of cosmos I think you're referring to.)

[stevea]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

We know that the chances of life are non-zero because life did appear on this planet. We understand how natural selection made life on Earth more diverse and complex. We know that the chances of civilization developing are also non-zero, because it happened here.

Yes, exactly. But if you'd ever understood the content of a stats101 course you'd realize that we have exactly ONE sample from a vast sample space and you CANNOT use that as the basis for any estimate. Also more troubling is that the sample was not independently selected ((the less hirsute chimps chose their own place of origin to look for life and - viola! - life was found - Duh !)).

We have completely insufficient data to estimate the probability from the available data. As you correctly state, all we know is that life originated at least once.

Quote:

You are arguing that the chances of life and civilization must be so improbable that it only happened once in this vast universe. That the probability of life and civilization forming in a solar orbit multiplied by the number of stars in the universe is approximately one. Where is your evidence to support this theory?

And even if you hold this theory, why not test it by searching for signs of life outside our own planet?

Like so many people on this forum, you seem unable to read or understand, so you resort to the fallacious strawman argument of attributing wrong and distorted versions of my position to me.

I did NOT NOT NOT argue that the probability of life forming was extremely low. I said the probability was UNKNOWN and NOT ESTIMATIBLE based on current knowledge. I am beginning to understand that most ppl are incapable of withholding belief/judgement when there is insufficient information. To you, Kestrel, my arguing that there is no evidence the prob(life) is high enough to assert that other life exists is equivalent to the obverse - that I am somehow saying the probability is extremely low. No, No, No - I am saying that we do not know, and that's it's stupid/irrational/unscientific/woo thinking to do as Sagan has and assert a probability value where there is no evidence.

For all we know, perhaps nearly every solar system has life, or alternately perhaps we are alone. No one can make any reasoned argument about the probability of life origination based on current knowledge, except to say it is non-zero. Sagan tried to assert a lower bound but that is woo.

So I DON'T hold the strawman theory you propose. I DO think it's reasonable to look for other life but I think the extent of the effort needs to be restricted to some rational level. I think SETI is completely reasonable. I think that including bio-tests on Viking and other Mars lander mission is completely reasonable. I DO NOT think that distorting the Viking mission to look for life as the primary goal is reasonable at all.

Far more important than looking for alien life and civilizations is to improve the probability that our own strain of life and civilization survives. We are doing a pretty poor job of that. Perhaps we should start looking for any evidence of intelligent life on earth

Quote:

Actually, I was in college when the Viking I spacecraft was launched. In one of my classes, two scientists actively working on the Viking team discussed the spacecraft and site selection. As I remember, the main issue was trading off the risks of landing with the scientific goals of the lander. The same issue that cropped up in the selection of Moon landing sites. Sagan was on the side of those arguing for riskier sites, but not alone in promoting them.

To give an Earth bound example, landing in the middle of the Utah Salt Flats might be best for assuring spacecraft survival. But not so good for sampling life on this planet.

Of course they never considered high-risk landing sites - that was never the issue. There used to be a website that discussed the real issue, but I can't find it, or more likely it is gone. Viking 1&2 were extremely expensive and the landers were primarily designed for geological/chem/bio/meteorological assay of Mars surface..


From Nasa.gov,

Quote:

NASA's Viking Mission to Mars was composed of two spacecraft, Viking 1 and Viking 2, each consisting of an orbiter and a lander. The primary mission objectives were to obtain high resolution images of the Martian surface, characterize the structure and composition of the atmosphere and surface, and search for evidence of life

Some Nasa/Viking program lead scientists had selected sites that were best for their intended mission, but a far less desirable location was pushed by Sagan so he could look for "martian spiders". The claim was that the Nasa preferred site would be more likely to show current water/ice and perhaps soil biochemistry. Because of his popularity Sagan won-out; greatly upsetting the Nasa scienticists and diluting the value of the mission.

My recollection is that Sagan believed that some particularly flat region may have resulted from subterranean water evaporation. There was a press leak at the time about some of the NASA specialists threatening to quit over Sagan's excessive influence on the landing site selection. AFAIK no one quit. The site selection occurred a year or two before the mission.

My interpretation is that Sagan used his popularity and his personal "life must exists elsewhere" religion to unduly influence the Viking landing site decision - wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and reducing the quality of research & resulting data. That makes Sagan a bad guy to me. The same sort of half-baked thinking and politicial power that results in these "intelligent design" nutjobs getting their agendas into schools. OK - Sagan isn't "that" bad/evil", but it is of exactly the same type.