Skeptical Thinking Presented by Carl Sagan

[SteveS]

Hi gang, I'm sure many of you have seen this little blurb before, but I wanted to share it with those of you who have not.  It's an excerpt from Carl Sagan's book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark", and it's an illustration of skeptical thought and why disproving a claim is not required to reject the claim until proper evidence should be presented.  I felt uncomfortable about reproducing the material here, so I found another site online that has the excerpt:

The Dragon In My Garage

I have a copy of the book, and I can honestly say that this is one of the most satisfying little blurbs I've ever read.  I love it.

P.S.

The entire book is good, and I would recommend it.  Just be aware that some sections, at least at the end, are very political.  I personally don't agree with all of Carl Sagan's politics, but at least he has the good grace to warn you ahead of time that a particular section is "going political" (lol) and he points out that politics is not science, so his presentation is very palatable.

[Will]

I find the comparison as entertaining as it is enlightening. There are no dragons in my garage, I can assure you with reasonable certainty.

[Squid]

In my opinion that was the best book Sagan ever wrote.  It is also one of my favorite books I've ever read.  I always recommend it to anyone whatever their belief.

[McQ]

In my opinion that was the best book Sagan ever wrote.  It is also one of my favorite books I've ever read.  I always recommend it to anyone whatever their belief.

Ditto, and I have two copies of it. One is a loaner, and it has been given out many times.

[SteveS]

I also recently finished a "new" one that is a collection of his (Sagan's) Gifford Lectures on Natural Theology at the University of Glasgow back in 1985 (go Bears).  The title is "The Varieties of Scientific Experience", subtitle "A Personal View of the Search for God".  Ann Druyan put it together and Penguin published it in 2006 (Here's a link to the publisher's page for the book, although you would probably get a better price somewhere else).

I enjoyed this one very much as well.  I sort of "rediscovered" Carl Sagan when the Science channel showed Cosmos again.  I get a huge kick out of his presentation style.  This "new" book has a record of some of the Q & A sessions that followed his lectures, and I liked these as much as anything else in the book.

[Scrybe]

Is this contradictory?

"Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Does not the word 'delusion' betray an attitude that is not open?  And again, I want to know why atheists believe the only valid form of proof is physical.  We humans have a huge spectrum of experiential collection and interpretation faculties.  Why insist that many of these faculties must be delusional or foolish?

[Squid]

Not necessarily.  Sagan was applying scientific rigor to the assessment.  All conclusions are tentative in that they may be revised contingent upon future evidence.  Were the evidence to completely overhaul our conclusion sometime later then the conclusion of it being a delusion would be revised.  However, the conclusion is based upon the evidence available at the time.

As far as phsyical proof - simple - it's measurable, testable, we can create models from this data and make predictions and test them again and again if necessary.  Our ability to test things which were formerly thought not testable have accumulated massively in the past couple of centuries.

What "experiential collection and interpretation faculties" do you think should be considered that cannot be measured or detected physically?

[Scrybe]

the conclusion is based upon the evidence available at the time.

I see.  Thank you for clarifying that.  And I agree that we need to make reasonable assessments about things in order to communicate and operate with any degree of efficiency.  However, I think you are downplaying the power of (ostensibly) temporary assessments.  For example, we both agree that the earth is roughly spherical in nature.  We operate in our day to day lives with that assumption, never questioning it.  We would probably be shocked if some new evidence were produced which proved it was actually flat.  In fact, in order to even be heard, this evidence would have to be overwhelmingly powerful in order to even begin to go through any sort of peer-review process.  Now suppose you have an assessment on a topic with much more nuance, requiring many more judgment calls and creative correlations.  Suppose there is a truth in there, but you've dismissed it because it doesn't appeal to you.  How much harder would that be to change you mind on the topic?      

As far as phsyical proof - simple - it's measurable, testable, we can create models from this data and make predictions and test them again and again if necessary.

Philosophical questions can sometimes be shown to be tenable or untenable by holding certain conclusions to physical proof requirements.  But most philosophical work does not reside in the realm of physical reality, and thus is not subject to such tests.  You can not physically test whether or not humans have a purpose or a soul.  

Our ability to test things which were formerly thought not testable have accumulated massively in the past couple of centuries.

Indeed.  This makes me question a person who puts so much faith in our current generation of scientific facts.  What new spectrum of reality will we be able to analyze next which may completely undercut our current understanding of reality?  

What "experiential collection and interpretation faculties" do you think should be considered that cannot be measured or detected physically?

That's a great question.  Honestly, one of the main reasons I'm here it to try to figure out a way to articulate what those… things… are.  I think the difficulty lies in the intrinsic limitation of language.  For example, I can't explain what beauty is.  I can show you beauty, and you may or may not agree with my assessment.  But I can't really lay it out in a scientific framework.  I don't think that means that beauty does not exist, only that our methods of analysis and communication fail to adequately convey its essence.  We can poke and prod at it with our blunt tools in an attempt to rationalize it and explain it scientifically, but in the process we lose what it is.  

It's like love.  We can measure chemical secretions and electrical impulses in the brain that accompany love.  But it's quite myopic (with apologies to Penn) to declare that those secretions and impulses are love.  As I'm sure you are aware, causation and correlation are two very different things.    

So when dealing with matters that fall outside the boundaries of science, it seems a bit preposterous to try to use the tools, methods, and viewpoint of science to communicate about them.  It seems to me (And please correct me if I'm wrong.) that atheists tend to want to stay within the confines of scientific communication and evaluation, deeming those things that fall outside of it as invalid, foolish, childish, or simply not worth their time.  This seems to me to be the result of a philosophical disposition to subject to science things which it has no business ruling.  

And to be clear, I'm not saying anything needs to be free from the rules of logic or reason, only the domain of scientific analysis; because it is intrinsically limited in what it can accomplish.  As they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems appear to be nails.

[Squid]

I see.  Thank you for clarifying that.  And I agree that we need to make reasonable assessments about things in order to communicate and operate with any degree of efficiency.  However, I think you are downplaying the power of (ostensibly) temporary assessments.  For example, we both agree that the earth is roughly spherical in nature.  We operate in our day to day lives with that assumption, never questioning it.  We would probably be shocked if some new evidence were produced which proved it was actually flat.  In fact, in order to even be heard, this evidence would have to be overwhelmingly powerful in order to even begin to go through any sort of peer-review process.  Now suppose you have an assessment on a topic with much more nuance, requiring many more judgment calls and creative correlations.  Suppose there is a truth in there, but you've dismissed it because it doesn't appeal to you.  How much harder would that be to change you mind on the topic?

That would then depend on the person doing the assessment - what might not appeal to one person and thereby summarily dismissed may be entertained by another.  For instance, with the question of say alien abductions.  I don't think there are actual little green men floating around putting probes in people's colons but I still entertain the idea and am more  than willing to consider evidence offered.

I often find myself when usually rummaging through the stacks of evolution vs. creationism vs. ID vs. whatever stuff I have occasionally just asking myself "am I wrong? Let's evaluate their evidence".  However, my conclusion so far has been in favor of evolutionary theory.  I know that may not be the perfect example but it was the first one I could think of.

Even people who do swear by empirical analysis will find themselves rejecting outright many things - most often because they are so completely outside the curve - Scientology for example.  I don't think I've ever set down and thought...maybe Tom Cruise is and alien spirit in a human body.  Also, most of us don't have the time, resources or want to take the time and consider every option there may be - so we use shortcuts and chop off the outliers.  This is not just me, everyone does this - call it an aspect of human behavior if you will.

So ultimately it depends on the person and the item being analyzed.  

Philosophical questions can sometimes be shown to be tenable or untenable by holding certain conclusions to physical proof requirements.  But most philosophical work does not reside in the realm of physical reality, and thus is not subject to such tests.  You can not physically test whether or not humans have a purpose or a soul.

Philosophical questions are philosophical questions because of their nature of being outside the realm of the empirical - although, as you stated, sometimes offers sway over their conclusions.  Thus, philosophy resorts to logic.  Contemporary philosophers will often attempt a synthesis of philosophical logic and scientific application where they can especially philosophers of science - many are fond of mathematics (never understood that one).  As for testing for a soul - that gets back to Sagan's point. If cannot be shown by any means such a thing exists but upon someone's say so then what's the difference between a soul or an intricate network of nuclei, chemicals and pathways interacting to produce what we call "us"?

That's a great question.  Honestly, one of the main reasons I'm here it to try to figure out a way to articulate what those… things… are.  I think the difficulty lies in the intrinsic limitation of language.  For example, I can't explain what beauty is.  I can show you beauty, and you may or may not agree with my assessment.  But I can't really lay it out in a scientific framework.  I don't think that means that beauty does not exist, only that our methods of analysis and communication fail to adequately convey its essence.  We can poke and prod at it with our blunt tools in an attempt to rationalize it and explain it scientifically, but in the process we lose what it is.  

It's like love.  We can measure chemical secretions and electrical impulses in the brain that accompany love.  But it's quite myopic (with apologies to Penn) to declare that those secretions and impulses are love.  As I'm sure you are aware, causation and correlation are two very different things.    

So when dealing with matters that fall outside the boundaries of science, it seems a bit preposterous to try to use the tools, methods, and viewpoint of science to communicate about them.  It seems to me (And please correct me if I'm wrong.) that atheists tend to want to stay within the confines of scientific communication and evaluation, deeming those things that fall outside of it as invalid, foolish, childish, or simply not worth their time.  This seems to me to be the result of a philosophical disposition to subject to science things which it has no business ruling.  

And to be clear, I'm not saying anything needs to be free from the rules of logic or reason, only the domain of scientific analysis; because it is intrinsically limited in what it can accomplish.  As they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems appear to be nails.

Science is the closest thing we have to obtaining an objective, factual view of things.  With logic and reason things are more fuzzy than something you can directly measure or quantify.  You had mentioned love.  Love is something of a vague term - ask several people and you'll get several different answers - why?  Because they're subject assessments of the person experiencing that process.  Neurochemically passionate love - the type most people think of when they refer to being "in love" is not much different than being addicted to cocaine.  However, couple that dopaminergic reward system with psychological aspects such as idealizing an object of affection and so forth plus the obvious other physiological results like elevated blood pressure, heart rate and so forth - and you have a collection of items which we call "love".

When people talk about such concepts, you'll rarely have a quantifiable answer - "love is having butterflies in your stomach" or "love is feeling completely alive when you're with someone".  We all know what those statements mean but as a reflection of physical reality they are meaningless and therefore we get nowhere with them.  For purposes of critical analysis, they do us no good.  It all depends on other factors that we can quanitify to make some kind of judgement - for instance having butterflies in your stomach (without knowing what this phrase means) - is it good?  It doesn't sound good.  However, when placed within the context of a person smiling and having a possible elevated tone of voice, particular body gestures - we could surmise that it is something good.  Butterflies in the stomach could also mean nervousness or fear as well in another context, let us not forget that.

How would you describe the color red to a blind man?  You can't really rely on telling him it's red (assuming that he's been blind his whole life) - you might resort to using descriptors like "vibrant" or "warm" which still do nothing to completely tell you what it is.  What about quantifying it?  This would assume the person understands the electromagnetic spectrum (you can always explain it to him.  You can describe the color red as a particular wavelength within the spectrum of what we call "visible light".  Within that particular framework it can have a more substantial meaning than being "vibrant".

My view is that you cannot completely separate something that is at the center of a critical analysis to make it meaningful within reality without some utilization of the empirical, the quantifiable - which I think only tends to make philosopher's arguments even stronger.  And we again come back to Sagan's point - with us not having unlimited time, resources and want to ponder everything that is proposed to us - why should we consider everything, why should we take the time to analyze something that has very little or no support for it other than someone's say so?

Okay, I know I've rambled on and this became rather lengthy, so I'll just leave it at that before I turn this into some long winded treatise.

[Scrybe]

couple that dopaminergic reward system with psychological aspects such as idealizing an object of affection and so forth plus the obvious other physiological results like elevated blood pressure, heart rate and so forth - and you have a collection of items which we call "love".

Yes, and my point is that this is an inadequate expression of what love is.  Inadequate precisely because it is limited to the physical, scientific lens of dissection.  In that sense it is not honest because it does not communicate what our experience as humans are.  A poem is better suited to the job.  It will not get into the nitty gritty of dopamine levels, but that does not make it less true.  Just as focusing only on the dopamine levels is not true.  And that is the heart of the issue.  We can not be completely objective when it comes to experiential matters.  Not to the degree that we can compare quantifiable scientific data.  I think our difference is in our expectations.  You and Sagan expect any true thing to be quantifiable.  I think it is clear that many aspects of our reality are not.  They reside in the experiential and are simply invisible to the scientific lens.  

The dragon analogy is dependant on a physically manifesting God who desires to be proven.  But I'm not claiming that God is physically provable.  I'm claiming that His interaction with humanity primarily takes place in the realm of experience.  Arguments for or against His existence are not in the jurisdiction of science, and thus, juxtaposing them there is a straw man argument.

Since arguments for God exist within an experiential framework they must be dealt with in that arena.  This is turf that seems to be summarily dismissed by materialists because of a preconception that physical material must be all that exists.  Yet there is no possible way to prove such a claim.  It is true that our experience could be completely comprised of physical phenomena.  It seems equally plausible that it is not.

So as long as you have drawn your line in the sand and said that proof for God must occur within your own boundaries, then you are truly not open to further investigation.  You can be, as Sagan puts it, "Open to future physical data." But the adjective betrays the closed attitude.            

How would you describe the color red to a blind man?

This is my point.  We are blind men.  Our science can tell us certain things.  It can not tell us all things.            

My view is that you cannot completely separate something that is at the center of a critical analysis to make it meaningful within reality without some utilization of the empirical, the quantifiable - which I think only tends to make philosopher's arguments even stronger.

Good and evil, love and beauty, aesthetics, music, poetry, and most religion can not be tied to the physical.  These are things that occur within the human experience and affect us in ways as big as the natural world does.  They interface with the natural world, but can not be proven to be generated by it.              

And we again come back to Sagan's point - with us not having unlimited time, resources and want to ponder everything that is proposed to us - why should we consider everything, why should we take the time to analyze something that has very little or no support for it other than someone's say so?

Couldn't the same argument be made for any physical, scientific inquiry?  The simple process of elimination takes care of the vast majority of possibilities.  Where do flies come from?  Evil thoughts!  No other physical things have been observed appearing from evil thoughts.  Let's try something else.  Rotting meat!  Well, all other animals seem to be birthed from like animals, so let's set that aside and investigate further.  There is no reason you can't apply the same reason to investigating the big questions of life.                        

If you were to work as hard at finding truth in the experiential realm as you do the physical you would end up with a handful of truth claims in a short period.  Of course you can never know with complete certainty which candidate is correct.  (Of course you can never know that you aren't a brain in a vat either.)  But you can apply your logic and reason to make your best educated guess.                  

Okay, I know I've rambled on and this became rather lengthy, so I'll just leave it at that before I turn this into some long winded treatise.

Haha… don't apologize to me.  Look how much wind I blow!                     :oops:

[Squid]

I would love to type a decent reply, however, I have more than a few beers under my belt at the moment so I'd probably start writing a long, wandering post that would probably end up about me talking about how Pibb Zero is much better than Coke Zero....Sprite Zero isn't bad though but I think Pibb definitely owns....what was I talking about?  Anyhow, back to beer.  And I'll definitely get back to you at some undrunk, unhungover point...later...tomorrow....evening...maybe...


...I want some delicious Arby's...

[Squid]

...this just in...


...beer is good...

...film at 11...

[SteveS]

...beer is good...

Truer words were never spoken.  Cheers!

[Squid]

Aaaaaand we're back...still alive, with a slight headache still lingering.

Anyhow, back to the topic although instead of the go round we're going into I figured I'd come at this from a different point.

Scrybe, you say that outside of what science can quantify lay these "experiential" events.  Now, my question would be, how are we to know these are a reality and not some anomaly of mind.  For instance, a man tells me he has had a "vision", a wonderous vision which moved him and so on and so forth.  How can anyone but this person possibly examine this man's claim?  We just have to take it upon his word?  What's to say it is actually some miraculous event and not simply the result of his temporal lobe epilepsy?

[donkeyhoty]

example of what Squid just said....  I've seen angels before, but it happened to be after I ate mushrooms, of the non-shitake variety, and was listening to Sigur Ros.  

Does that mean the angels were real, and trying to give me a message?
Maybe it does, damn, I better get on that holy book I have to write.