Carl Sagan quote - Science is much more than a body of knowledge

[seagal]

Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which ones best match the facts. It urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything — new ideas and established wisdom. We need wide appreciation of this kind of thinking. It works. It’s an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change. Our task is not just to train more scientists but also to deepen public understanding of science.

Saw this on FB today and it made me cringe a bit. Sagan was notoriously anti-religious so it’s not surprising that he would set Science up as a sort of god. What bothers me is that although he counsels us to weigh the facts carefully “even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions”, I notice most who have embraced the Religion of Scientism have solidly closed and barred their minds to the very idea that there could exist a supernatural plane of existence.

Your thoughts?

 

[Oreoracle]

Precisely which part of the quote did you find disturbing? How did Sagan liken science to a god?

 

[mikekle]

Well, Science IS much more than a bunch of knowledge, but right now in modern times, mankind only recognizes its uses in terms of knowledge, we havent quite reached the time when science is used for MUCH MUCH more, eventually that will come, but mankind will have to learn how to access certain parts of our brains in order to use them. We are getting close, but not there yet.

However I did see on the national news yesterday, some university did an experiment using telepathy to send information to someone in another country and it was successful and I believe they said it was 100 times faster than a text message or email, so that is promising!! But Id say before we reach this kind of thing, we will probably go thru a period where certain technologies are kind of merged with our biology, like bio-technology and/or bio-mechanics, using our brains and some form of computer technology in sync…just imagine what we will be able to do in the next 50 yrs!!!

 

[Gliggle]

While Carl Sagan was an atheist, he wasn’t quite of the same line of Atheistic thought as say your hateful Dawkins types, he was also a far superior thinker. From his comments it is simply obvious that he had no understanding of Faith. I like to think such men, entranced by the wonder of the universe, are greatly loved by God, and God in his wisdom, is perhaps just saving the very best for last for them by withholding this grace.

From wiki he also said:

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.

^ Head 2006, p. 70

 

[schaeffer]

Saw this on FB today and it made me cringe a bit. Sagan was notoriously anti-religious so it’s not surprising that he would set Science up as a sort of god. What bothers me is that although he counsels us to weigh the facts carefully “even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions”, I notice most atheists who have embraced the Religion of Scientism have solidly closed and barred their minds to the very idea that there could exist a supernatural plane of existence.

Your thoughts?

Most atheists I know put it this way, they see no evidence of the supernatural, therefore they do not put their faith in it, they see evidence that the Scientific method makes discoveries that match the processes of the Universe, therefore they put their faith in it.

I know theists who became atheists when through personal experience they found no evidence in the supernatural, and atheists who became theists when they had supernatural experiences.

The idea that atheists are markedly different from all other humans in the way they think and behave is untrue. Most people follow what they have found to bring results in their own lives.

 

[seagal]

The idea that atheists are markedly different from all other humans in the way they think and behave is untrue. Most people follow what they have found to bring results in their own lives.

I didn’t mean to imply that atheists think differently. Maybe I’m overly sensitive when it comes to the so-called “new” atheism because it’s so prevalent on the internet. You know what I mean, that angry, belligerent atheism that denounces all believers as idiots.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Saw this on FB today and it made me cringe a bit. Sagan was notoriously anti-religious so it’s not surprising that he would set Science up as a sort of god. What bothers me is that although he counsels us to weigh the facts carefully “even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions”, I notice most atheists who have embraced the Religion of Scientism have solidly closed and barred their minds to the very idea that there could exist a supernatural plane of existence.

Your thoughts?

With the following specifications, which conform to the historical development of the scientific method, I see no problems with the quote:

Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking about physical reality]. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts about physical reality] in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions about physical reality]. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which ones best match the facts about physical reality]. It urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas about physical reality], however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything — new ideas and established wisdom. We need wide appreciation of this kind of thinking about physical reality]. It works. It’s an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change. Our task is not just to train more scientists but also to deepen public understanding of science which is about physical reality].

 

[SecretCatholic]

But Id say before we reach this kind of thing, we will probably go thru a period where certain technologies are kind of merged with our biology, like bio-technology and/or bio-mechanics, using our brains and some form of computer technology in sync…just imagine what we will be able to do in the next 50 yrs!!!

Ah, transhumanism- Yes, I imagine we can and will do much damage to the human race in the next half a century. I’m sure it will cause worse problems than humanity has ever faced. Good luck “transcending” humanity without God!

 

[mikekle]

Ah, transhumanism- Yes, I imagine we can and will do much damage to the human race in the next half a century. I’m sure it will cause worse problems than humanity has ever faced. Good luck “transcending” humanity without God!

I recently watched a special documentary on groundbreaking science currently underway at a few universities…this may sound impossible, but the way they were talking, they are getting close to being able to literally download a persons ‘being’ or self into/onto something, and then their hope is to be able to transfer that persons ‘self’ into a type of body, probably a bio-mechanical type body initially, but who knows what once this process is refined over the years!

They claim to be pretty close now, but not quite there, say definitely within the next 20 yrs and probably be commonplace within 50-80 yrs…So, they are basically attempting to prevent people from dying!!! I think once they have a better understanding of the human brain, they will likely be able to do this successfully, but that makes me wonder what Gods response would be (if any)…I mean, I realize he gave us our intelligence and we do have free will, but what happens when we literally get too smart for our own good and begin doing things like this?

What happens if this is successful? will death be a thing of the past in the near future?

I imagine once they unlock this process, it will be extremely expensive, probably the most expensive thing we have ever seen, but I have a feeling alot of people would feel its worth it, as it is allowing them to cheat death, so they will pay whatever is asked, but eventually, decades after this is begun, it will come down in price and probably be available to anyone wanting it at some point, it may take 100 yrs, but it WILL happen!

Plus, this is whats going on RIGHT NOW…cannot imagine the things they will be attempting and experimenting with in another 200-500 yrs…I mean, whats next? will they eventually try to find Heaven/ hell and attempt to throw God out? LOL I know it sounds crazy and i say it jokingly, but a few hundred years is alot of time, hard to imagine what kind of things we will able to do in those times!!..then think another 1000 yrs…then 5000 yrs…I doubt our society will even be recognizable by then though (if we are still around that is).

 

[jimmy]

The scientific method is a way of thinking. It is the combination of empiricism and reason, with the freedom to question. It isn’t atheistic. If you are afraid of the scientific method because it may be harmful to your faith, there may be a problem with your faith because the scientific method is simply a reasonable approach to life.

 

[yppop]

The scientific method is a way of thinking. It is the combination of empiricism and reason, with the freedom to question. It isn’t atheistic. If you are afraid of the scientific method because it may be harmful to your faith, there may be a problem with your faith because the scientific method is simply a reasonable approach to life.

Anyone that thinks the scientific method is one of the great contributions to human evolution is someone that has been sold one of the great myths of Liberalized education. What people mean by the scientific method ( observation, hypothesis, experiment, verification) it used primarily in High School science fairs and in those areas of investigation such as psychology which fall beyond the demarcation line between science and not-science for which Popper introduced the concept of falsification. Science ,which might be defined as that which finds its way into the text books, is established in a variety of ways, primarily by a set of principles; not by any particular method.And the philosophical principle, logical positivism, that guides science disallows the scientist from the possibility that God exists. Most scientists do not allow for that possibility and hence, at the current time, theoretical science is dead in the water. There haven’t been any theoretical advances in 50+ years. Science can only advance empirically, i.e, technologically, unless science discovers God.
Yppop

 

[SecretCatholic]

I mean, I realize he gave us our intelligence and we do have free will, but what happens when we literally get too smart for our own good and begin doing things like this?

Exactly. Please think VERY hard about what these things mean to human dignity, freedom and society. God gave us free will, and we, in our fallen nature, tend to abuse it. What will happen once technology reaches these levels? It won’t be good.

I mean, whats next? will they eventually try to find Heaven/ hell and attempt to throw God out? LOL I know it sounds crazy and i say it jokingly, but a few hundred years is alot of time, hard to imagine what kind of things we will able to do in those times!!

If God is God, there can be nothing more fundamental or powerful in reality.

 

[jimmy]

I recently watched a special documentary on groundbreaking science currently underway at a few universities…this may sound impossible, but the way they were talking, they are getting close to being able to literally download a persons ‘being’ or self into/onto something, and then their hope is to be able to transfer that persons ‘self’ into a type of body, probably a bio-mechanical type body initially, but who knows what once this process is refined over the years!

They claim to be pretty close now, but not quite there, say definitely within the next 20 yrs and probably be commonplace within 50-80 yrs…So, they are basically attempting to prevent people from dying!!! I think once they have a better understanding of the human brain, they will likely be able to do this successfully, but that makes me wonder what Gods response would be (if any)…I mean, I realize he gave us our intelligence and we do have free will, but what happens when we literally get too smart for our own good and begin doing things like this?

What happens if this is successful? will death be a thing of the past in the near future?

I imagine once they unlock this process, it will be extremely expensive, probably the most expensive thing we have ever seen, but I have a feeling alot of people would feel its worth it, as it is allowing them to cheat death, so they will pay whatever is asked, but eventually, decades after this is begun, it will come down in price and probably be available to anyone wanting it at some point, it may take 100 yrs, but it WILL happen!

Plus, this is whats going on RIGHT NOW…cannot imagine the things they will be attempting and experimenting with in another 200-500 yrs…I mean, whats next? will they eventually try to find Heaven/ hell and attempt to throw God out? LOL I know it sounds crazy and i say it jokingly, but a few hundred years is alot of time, hard to imagine what kind of things we will able to do in those times!!..then think another 1000 yrs…then 5000 yrs…I doubt our society will even be recognizable by then though (if we are still around that is).

If that were possible do you really think it would be made available to the average man or even the average American? If immortality were possible from a human technological approach it would be given to a select few. The idea of overpopulation of earth would be pushed far more, and the likes of you and me would never receive access to the technology. There would then be a real class system.

 

[inocente]

Saw this on FB today and it made me cringe a bit. Sagan was notoriously anti-religious so it’s not surprising that he would set Science up as a sort of god. What bothers me is that although he counsels us to weigh the facts carefully “even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions”, I notice most atheists who have embraced the Religion of Scientism have solidly closed and barred their minds to the very idea that there could exist a supernatural plane of existence.

Your thoughts?

I can’t see anything wrong in the OP Sagan quote. Science is the methodology that produces the body of knowledge, after all that’s what scientists do. The method is successful in producing knowledge, and in large part it achieves that by a balance between naivety and cynicism.

Not sure about your comment on scientism. I’ve met far fewer of that kind of religionista than the god-of-the-gaps anti-science types who maintain that science will destroy civilization (but carry on using all the technological fruits, including scientific medicine, as apparently that’s totally different).

 

[seagal]

The scientific method is a way of thinking. It is the combination of empiricism and reason, with the freedom to question. It isn’t atheistic. If you are afraid of the scientific method because it may be harmful to your faith, there may be a problem with your faith because the scientific method is simply a reasonable approach to life.

I’m not afraid of the scientific method, I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with taking a logical and rational look at one’s beliefs, as good apologists do. But I don’t believe that’s the only way. Some things (beauty, morality) must be looked at philosophically. The problem is that some atheists don’t agree and who claim (as Stephen Hawking does) that philosophy is dead.

 

[seagal]

I don’t understand why this made you cringe.
I don’t see him setting up Science as “God” here. He talks about how Science works. There is no “Religion of Scientism”.
I also don’t see anything anti-religious here.

Most Atheists I know, fyi, have researched religion thoroughly before making their decision of what they believe or not…and they often know more about religion than Theists.

.

Unfortunately, this is not my experience. For most of the atheists I’ve come in contact with, the only thing they know about religion is what they’ve heard from Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss, Harris, Ehrman, et al.

 

[seagal]

But tread carefully as there is a temporary ban on discussing atheism.

Thank you, I wasn’t aware of that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

From Sagan’s quote:

“It [science] urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything — new ideas and established wisdom.”

This passage in particular betrays Sagan’s own lack of wisdom. Science has nothing to do with wisdom. Science is concerned with acquiring a special type of knowledge achieved by certain special means appropriate to the particular science.

It is philosophy, not science, that is concerned with wisdom. One can be wise about the uses and methods of science, but that is the application of philosophy (analytical thinking) to science. The fundamental principles of all science belong to a branch of philosophy called epistemology. No less a person than Einstein recognized this and urged others to recognize it.

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Albert Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944.

 

[Bradski]

From Sagan’s quote:

“It [science] urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything — new ideas and established wisdom.”

This passage in particular betrays Sagan’s own lack of wisdom. Science has nothing to do with wisdom. Science is concerned with acquiring a special type of knowledge achieved by certain special means appropriate to the particular science.

I think that you knew that Sagan wasn’t talking about wisdom per se but knowledge that has been generally accepted as fact to the point where it has become become ‘established wisdom’.

I’m sure you could think of lots of examples.

 

[buffalo]

Sagan was a pitchman for scientism.