And now, a few words from Carl Sagan : Pharyngula

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread

Register for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 12-14 March 2010

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

Never before have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church?

[Black Adder II]

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« Promises, promises | Main | Why do they hate the manimal? »

And now, a few words from Carl Sagan

Category: Communicating science
Posted on: July 13, 2009 10:15 PM, by PZ Myers

Since there has been so much talk about Carl Sagan lately, let's hear it from the man himself, in his last interview with Charlie Rose. He's interestingly complicated.

Find more posts in: Humanities & Social Science

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/114808

Comments

Posted by: Lynna | July 13, 2009 10:26 PM

This combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces.

Well, said. Maybe he's the Prophet. (/sarcasm)

Posted by: CSBSH | July 13, 2009 10:31 PM

Nice to see a host that lets the guest speak without constantly interrupting him.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 13, 2009 10:33 PM

Wow, he's so blunt... how dare he question the profoundly held beliefs of others? he's going beyond his scientific capacity / making a categorisation error / being militant / etc.

Posted by: ThorSonofOdin | July 13, 2009 10:38 PM

So glad you posted this PZ.

This was really the beginning of my walk down the science blogging rabbit hole. my second year of graduate school I became obsessed with watching any and all you tube videos of Carl Sagan. This eventually led me to check out the entire cosmos series from the library and watch the whole thing in a very long weekend and also go as far back as Jacob Bronowski's "Ascent of Man" BBC series which is what Carl based Cosmos off of conceptually. This is a great opportunity to get back to my basic science popularizer philosophy. Viva la Sagan. What a hero for critical thinking!! Cheers for the post!

Posted by: Will | July 13, 2009 10:44 PM

@CSBSH

Even Charlie Rose fails to uphold to that standard all of the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTHSjiQexAI

Posted by: Denis Alexander | July 13, 2009 10:49 PM

We need about 100 Carls to fix the public perception of science, its goals, methods, and place in society. That would amount to... well, about 10,000 PZs (sorry PZ).

Posted by: Chayanov | July 13, 2009 10:49 PM

He's only going to alienate the religious against science with that attitude. He should be more accommodating of others' beliefs.

Posted by: Anon | July 13, 2009 10:55 PM

Most eloquent Zombie ever.

Posted by: Lynna | July 13, 2009 10:57 PM

The bit where he talked about facing death was great. No religious conversion -- glad he had an opportunity to make that clear.

... enhance my sense of appreciation... of the sheer joy of being alive.

The canard that scientists are dry, emotionless, incapable of great joy (blah, blah and more blah) -- that canard is proven wrong by Sagan. I get the same impression when I listen to Dawkins. The "sheer joy of being alive" is evident.

#10

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 13, 2009 10:57 PM

PZ, you just Annie Halled Mooney, producing Sagan from behind a sandwich board like Woody Allen did Marshall Mcluhan to the moron yammering about him in the movie line.

Mooney clearly knows nothing about Sagan's work.

#11

Posted by: JD | July 13, 2009 10:59 PM

Waaah, Sagan man hurt people's feelings about magic.

#12

Posted by: Robert | July 13, 2009 11:04 PM

Carl, I miss you so much...

Robert

#13

Posted by: Robert | July 13, 2009 11:06 PM

Carl, I miss you so much...

Robert

#14

Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 13, 2009 11:09 PM

Sagan's most important contribution was that he understood that science education is fundamentally democratic. It empowers the public.

#15

Posted by: Interstellar Transit Authority | July 13, 2009 11:21 PM

"People are able to look at sports statistics, look at how many people can do that. Understanding science is not more difficult than that, it doesn't demand greater intellectual activity." - Carl Sagan

Goddamn...what would this country be capable of if we followed science with same enthusiasm that we follow football?

Surely someone in the science world has the same hair as Mel Kiper Jr.

#16

Posted by: Bueller_007 | July 13, 2009 11:56 PM

A hero.

My first scientist-hero.

#17

Posted by: Michael Simpson | July 13, 2009 11:59 PM

Back before DVD's, TiVo, and frankly any recording device whatsoever (I couldn't afford a betamax back then), I waited patiently for the next episode of Cosmos. I miss oratory on science. And of course, billions and billions of stars.

#18

Posted by: maidden | July 14, 2009 12:22 AM

1. From this video, it seems obvious to me that Charlie Rose was the Jon Stewart of his time.

2. Watching Sagan talk always makes me so happy, I just wanna hug him. Then I remember I can't ever, and it makes me sad.

*imaginary hug*

#19

Posted by: Somite | July 14, 2009 12:29 AM

"Believing when there is no compelling evidence is a mistake. The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence" 'nuff said.

#20

Posted by: Autumn | July 14, 2009 12:32 AM

Man, this is why I love Sagan. How is one able to be so eloquent about such subjects without a script? I know, I know, he talked and wrote about this stuff a lot, so had a great big bag of tricks, but still. . .
Also, this is why I like finding Rose interviewing someone I find interesting; he tends to ask the good question and get out of the way (to Will @ #5, Rose seemed really coked-up, but he may have just been aware that giving an author too much space would result in a spoken-word novel, and needed the interview to move along).
Even people I vehemently disagree with, Rose makes interesting by allowing more than ten-second sound bites. I actually can learn a little bit about a point of view.

#21

Posted by: MadScientist | July 14, 2009 12:33 AM

Even while dying of some horrible disease, Sagan manages to appear in a lengthy interview - now there was a man dedicated to teaching.

#22

Posted by: jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 14, 2009 12:33 AM

"Religion deals with history, with poetry, with great literature, with ethics, with morals, including the morality of treating compassionately the least fortunate among us. Where religion gets into trouble is when it pretends to know something about science"

"Who is more humble: The scientist, who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says 'whatever it says in this book must be considered the literal truth, and never mind the infallibility of all the human beings involved in the writing of it?'"

Speak it, Brother Sagan. Thank Science that this recording is available for us to listen to and appreciate tonight.

#23

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 14, 2009 12:36 AM

Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 13, 2009 11:09 PM
Sagan's most important contribution was that he understood that science education is fundamentally democratic. It empowers the public.

And that's why there are powerful people who oppose it.

#24

Posted by: SC, OM | July 14, 2009 12:53 AM

Sagan's most important contribution was that he understood that science education is fundamentally democratic. It empowers the public.
And that's why there are powerful people who oppose it.

Somewhat relatedly, here's Sagan from The Varieties of Scientific Experience* (pp. 188-9):

I would like to conclude with a quote from Bertrand Russell, from his Skeptical Essays, published in 1928. I should warn you, this is redolent with irony.
I wish to propose for the reader's favorable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. I must of course admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform our social life and our political system. Since both are at present faultless this must weigh against it.

*Yes, I've quoted from this here relentlessly, I know. But it rocks. And almost every page is a slam on religion and religious belief.

#25

Posted by: Blake | July 14, 2009 12:58 AM

Rose is a nice guy and a good interviewer, and he genuinely cares about the interviewee and the subject they're discussing. But like Terry Gross and Jon Stewart and Diane Rehm and Tavis Smiley and practically all the rest, their specialty is current events and artsy/musicy/politics type things and they're UTTERLY CLUELESS ABOUT SCIENCE or anything related to skepticism/rationalism in general. It's even on display here, Sagan gets through 20 minutes of patiently explaining to Rose how to think skeptically about things like life after death and aliens and so on, and STILL he exhorts Sagan "Faith Carl, faith!!". It makes me want to smack him. Is he fucking listening at all? Don't even get me started on Terry Gross' Dawkins interview. Holy shit that was a fuckin' comic travesty.

#26

Posted by: DLC | July 14, 2009 1:02 AM

I note that Carl Sagan was never Expelled. . .
But there was much intelligence there, and dare I say there was also wisdom. He'll be missed.

#27

Posted by: Ralph Johnson | July 14, 2009 1:22 AM

I don't understand all the fawning over Carl Sagan on this blog. Admittedly, I didn't watch the entire interview, but when Rose asks him if he wants to throw out religion, Sagan, says, "No,no, no,". The only time he has trouble with religion is when it encroaches on science, but the literature, the poetry, the morals, ethics, everything else is great. Sounds like he would be an accommodationist, the very thing PZ claims he hates.

#28

Posted by: Jeroen Metselaar | July 14, 2009 1:38 AM

@Ralph Johnson:

It is quite possible to admire a person without agreeing with him on everything.

#29

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 14, 2009 2:16 AM

@ Ralph Johnson,

While Sagan would disagree with Myers (and many here) about religion's importance on ethics, morals, etc. he isn't exactly an accommodationist either. He's probably closer to agreeing with Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria(NOMA) idea. He was not appeasing when religions made scientific claims.

Even if we don't agree with him on religion entirely we can still praise the work he has done in bringing science to the general public.

#30

Posted by: Will | July 14, 2009 2:21 AM

@Autumn #20

I agree. Rose was definitely on some kind of drug, had his drink spiked or was anticipating sex and was just trying to hurry through the interview with Kurt Vonnegut.

To be fair, it was a short clip so maybe he wasn't so bad throughout the entire interview.

#31

Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 14, 2009 2:30 AM

The Dragons of Eden and Broca's Brain are still compelling reading since they were published.

PBS had a hell of a decade, Cosmos, Ascent of Man, Life on Earth...

Rose does give good interview.

#32

Posted by: 4th Dimension | July 14, 2009 2:32 AM

Sagan's most important video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

The only remaining room for mysticism is the 4th dimension, that which we are but cannot imagine.

#33

Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 14, 2009 2:49 AM

Ralph Johnson, A nice thing about living during the present is you can still watch Cosmos and read the books that Sagan wrote. I have no idea how old you are but Sagan had brought the sciences to the public as no one else had done previously.

Was Sagan or Einstein an accomidationist? Different times and different trends of thought. To me they weren't.

#34

Posted by: Woof | July 14, 2009 3:05 AM

Surely someone in the science world has the same hair as Mel Kiper Jr.

Nobody else on this planet has Mel Kiper Jr. hair.

#35

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 14, 2009 4:41 AM

Was Sagan or Einstein an accomidationist? Different times and different trends of thought. To me they weren't.

Different times and different trends of thought indeed. Neither Sagan nor Einstein were as outspoken Dawkins and Harris. It's not that no one ever wrote a book like "The End of Faith" or "The God Delusion" before -- it's that they never sold as well before.

You can see the cultural shift in all sorts of places. I've noted one area on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2009/07/vampires-come-full-circle.html

#36

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 14, 2009 4:59 AM

Different times and different trends of thought indeed. Neither Sagan nor Einstein were as outspoken Dawkins and Harris. It's not that no one ever wrote a book like "The End of Faith" or "The God Delusion" before -- it's that they never sold as well before.

The Demon Haunted World was just as brutal as either of those in content, just had a really different tone.

#37

Posted by: John Morales | July 14, 2009 6:05 AM

MadScientist,

Even while dying of some horrible disease, Sagan manages to appear in a lengthy interview - now there was a man dedicated to teaching.

I've only recently watched a number of episodes of Cosmos, and to see the ravaged visage of Sagan in this interview tugged at my heart-strings and put me into a melancholy mood. So sad.

#38

Posted by: windy | July 14, 2009 6:53 AM

While Sagan would disagree with Myers (and many here) about religion's importance on ethics, morals, etc. he isn't exactly an accommodationist either. He's probably closer to agreeing with Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria(NOMA) idea.

No way! I'd say that Sagan's view was that religion can be compatible with science if it's held to the same standard of doubt and critical examination as other beliefs. I think he gave the major religions a little too much credit of actually meaning it when they pay lip service to this idea, though.

#39

Posted by: scooter | July 14, 2009 7:12 AM

I was just going to say that I did not know that there was any talk about Carl Sagan.

Apparently it was all drowned out by Michael Jackson.

The thing about Carl Sagan is that he did not live to comment on Michael Jackson, I think he also missed the death of Princess Di so how the fuck is he relevant?

I'm glad that Charlie fucking Rose took time out from interviewing Henry Kissinger and every fucking fascist on the planet to challenge Sagan's views, while laying down for his mentor, Kissinger for a DECADE, this motherfucker slaughtered a million Cambodians.

All of you stupid americans need to get off your Charlie Rose, fuck Charlie Rose.

You need to pay attention to what your brain smells like when it is being melted by Sarah Palin, this is where the action is:
Listen to sarah:
http://acksisofevil.org/audio/saracuda.mp3

then go back to work and shut the fuck up.

#40

Posted by: Crapshoot Parvule | July 14, 2009 7:26 AM

What? I am at work.

#41

Posted by: scooter | July 14, 2009 7:42 AM

Crapshoot said:

I am at work.

Good time to ask if you are moving symbols around, or producing something that exists in four dimensions, I'm a worker and rising up, so I need to know if you're on my side, which is either black or white, I forget, but definitely not shades of grey because then I have to think, and when that happens, things get weird and unstable, which would be cool, except I always get fired

#42

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 14, 2009 8:00 AM

He's probably closer to agreeing with Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria(NOMA) idea.
No way! I'd say that Sagan's view was that religion can be compatible with science if it's held to the same standard of doubt and critical examination as other beliefs.

I was basing the idea that he held some sort of NOMA belief based on what he said in the Charlie Rose video, starting at around 8:00,

Religion deals with history, with poetry, with great literature, with ethics, with morals, including the morality of treating compassionately the least fortunate among us. All of these are things I endorse whole-heatedly.
Where religion gets into trouble is in those cases that is pretends to know something about science.

Regardless of what his exact views were it's clear that when religion contradicted science he wasn't an accomodationist.

#43

Posted by: scooter | July 14, 2009 8:13 AM

Where religion gets into trouble is in those cases that is pretends to know something about science.

Oh Really?

I thought religion got in the way when it consistently calls out for persecution of gays, coloreds, unweds, and the slimey underbelly of non-believers.

Also millions of not agreeing religious scum MUST DIE!!!!@!!

I was wrong, when religion get's into trouble it's about Galileo and science and that's what gets all messed up. so thank my pink shiney white fucking ass that I never got entangled in wronginess about science so that means I must be right about god, and I've served him well so bring on the biotches!!

#44

Posted by: Lord Zero | July 14, 2009 8:28 AM

I just loved that book.
Even the title is amazingly memorable.

The thing which makes me feel quite sad, is
than Sagan here is stating the same facts which we
are grieving about today.

Seems like we have not being able to improve from
that death pit of delusions and pseudocience...

Well, its not like we are going to give up that
easily though.

#45

Posted by: Jeff S | July 14, 2009 8:40 AM

I love cosmos. My friend turned me on to it (he turned me onto pharyngula too) and I haven't been able to get enough of it.

Carl Sagan was (and continues to be through his work) a gift to the world. How anyone could listen to him and not be completely won over is mind boggling. The man has a voice that disarms you and such an amazing mind that he can present himself so fully that you have to purposely ignore reason to dismiss him.

#46

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 14, 2009 9:18 AM

I recall Sagan with the same kind of gratitude that I have for my mother. You see, Ma taught me how to read. Then Carl taught me how to think. How very fortunate I am.

#47

Posted by: Joe the Ordinary Guy | July 14, 2009 9:27 AM

It IS sad that we are still struggling with the same problems that Sagan is lamenting. But really, was there ever a time that ALL Americans understood and respected science? And did we somehow fall from that exalted state? No, we've always had a lot of people, and a varying percentage of them understand and accept science.

Perhaps we need to set more achievable goals for ourselves.

The goal “make everyone science literate” might just be impossible. I'd settle for “keep idiots away from science policy.” Maybe add “keep the public perception of science and scientists positive.”

#48

Posted by: Lucas McCarty | July 14, 2009 10:10 AM

Ever since I read that Hugo Weaving based the voice and manner of Agent Smith in the Matrix on Carl Sagan, I've not been able to listen to either of them without the other super-imposing their form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA

#49

Posted by: SplendidMonkey | July 14, 2009 10:48 AM

In case there are a few out there that don't yet know, the entire cosmos series can be viewed on hulu.

#50

Posted by: haroldmh | July 14, 2009 12:07 PM

And let us not forget Richard Feynman.

#51

Posted by: Dinosaur Teacher | July 14, 2009 1:17 PM

Scooter, if Palin is the virus, it's Sagan who's the vaccination. This is the kind of thought we need to encourage today in our country.

#52

Posted by: Strangel | July 14, 2009 1:45 PM

I miss Sagan. I often fall asleep to The Cosmos...

Thanks for that tidbit of info Lucas. I never made the connection but often do impressions of them both, lol.

#53

Posted by: uncle frogy | July 14, 2009 1:59 PM

no I did not know or even think to look at Hulu for Cosmos thank you very much.
I can still hear "the voice". Jacob Bronowski's "Ascent of Man" was a personal mile stone and his voice is also echoing in my mind still.

I am not decided on what I think of Charlie Rose but no one else I have found talks to so many different people in depth and not just when they are funny or pushing some new product IE book, movie or something but still not all the time.

Sagan had clearly looked into the void and his own heart and had the courage to accept the truth with courage and follow the "clues" where ever they went.

thanks for posting it

#54

Posted by: Bacopa | July 14, 2009 2:55 PM

This is one of the rare interviews he did while his hair was growing back from his unsuccesful cancer treatments. Sagan died during his next bout of treatment. First treatments gave him a few years with us. Best birthday ever was when I got a bunch of Sagan books when I was 14.

I miss him.

#55

Posted by: mdmadph | July 14, 2009 3:28 PM

Man, we need someone like him so badly during these times.

#56

Posted by: GeoffR | July 14, 2009 5:04 PM

I'm one of millions who miss Carl and desperately wish he was still with us.

#57

Posted by: Lynn | July 14, 2009 9:09 PM

I did love Sagan. I even named one of my cats after him. Told him so when I met him in NC many years ago. Couldn't think of anything better to say!!
Stayed up super late the other night watching 'Contact'. I think I'll read that book again.
I grew up watching Cosmos and like others couldn't wait for the next episode. I even took an Astronomy course in college, sorry to say that I couldn't really handle the math that went along with it. I guess I thought it'd be more like a Cosmos episode! :-)
Thanks for posting this.

#58

Posted by: Calybos | July 15, 2009 1:18 PM

Sagan didn't go out of his way to "attack" religion, but that's far from saying he was an accommodationist.

Sagan's style was relentlessly positive. The only things he ever attacked were faulty arguments, never beliefs. He spent far more time and effort portraying the positives of rationality: the wonder of exploration, the joy of discovery, the elation of coming to a certain and proven conclusion. That was his role as a popularizer... to draw people in, not shut them down.

Attacking religion would not have served the same purpose.

#59

Posted by: Tim | July 16, 2009 3:19 AM

Sagan's position was the more logical one, I think. One that I relate to much more than the "New Atheist" movement.

He saw the superstitious as vulnerable, but encouragable. They were victims of unfortunate circumstance and limited perspective, but they had the same capacity for learning as the rest of us.

He didn't seek to confront your deepest beliefs upfront, but to open your mind to the very basics of critical thought, with the hope of seeding a desire to question and learn more than what you were told.

It was a sort of encouragement to "ween" people out of delusion.

He wasn't accommodationist. He was empathetic.