Science and Inquiry discussion

For May 2014 we will be reading The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.

Please use this thread to post questions, comments, and reviews at any time.

I just started reading this book and I have the feeling that I'm going to love it.

I know Sagan was an accomplished scientist, but he is probably best known as a science communicator. I think the very beginning of this book gives us a hint as to why that is. He does not hesitate to talk to ordinary people (non-scientists) in every day situations, and to listen to them. It may be a cliche, but too many scientists are wholly focused on their work and get isolated in their ivory towers. Not everyone can have the gift of communication and that's okay, they have other gifts. But those who do, like Sagan, are priceless.

Exactly. He was truly interesting in 'spreading' the sense of wonder that is science!

Rose wrote: "This looks to be an interesting book. I am debating to get the kindle edition or paperback, since the copy at my local library is missing."

I've got both. :)

used paperback on Amazon was cheap and I love it so much I bought the ebook. :)

If your local library doesn't have it, there are usually a lot of cheap used copies around. It sold pretty well by the standards of books about science.

My favorite thing about this book is that it isn't so much about this bit of knowledge or that bit of science as it is about shifting the way we think as a species.

It explores science as a mode of thinking and a way of approaching the world rather than as a set of experiments or stack of studies and reports.

I think that's so essential because so few people do think that way and so many think of science as some set of understandings instead of a pure way of looking at life, the universe, and everything (sorry, could resist).

I bought this books years ago but never got around to reading it. Pale Blue Dot is one of my favorite books, so I think in May, I'll finally make reading it a priority.

Thanks! This will give me an excuse to re-read it! I have to say that my all time favorite book of Sagan was Broca's Brain. I have said elsewhere that I have always loved science, but Sagan help me understand why I love it... (:-)

A bit off topic, but I've been enjoying the new version of the Cosmos TV series. I saw the original when I was just a little kid, and I was glued to the screen. Guys like Sagan were a big part of the reason I decided I wanted to study science.

any comments on The Dragon in my Garage? it's one of my favorites in the book.

Oh wait...oopsie...this is really not up for reading til May...

Just started and read the Preface. Beautiful writing. This is my first Sagan read.

I loved when he talked about his dad being his mediator and continuing to write numerals for him while he took his bath; so that he could finish writing to 1000.

And when he described attending the World's Fair and visiting, "The World of Tomorrow" where everything "would be sleek, clean, streamlined and, as far as I could tell, without a trace of poor people." It was an optimistic time, I wonder if we could change our attitude and somehow change our world to fit that idea now?

And it is so true that as many good teachers that he had, that it was his parents that truly he learned most from as a child.

Kathy wrote: "And it is so true that as many good teachers that he had, that it was his parents that truly he learned most from as a child. "

I think that's true for most people. Sometimes that's a sad truth and sometimes a happy one. The birth lottery seems to pick which it is for each of us.

I am in, like others I am also watching the new version of Cosmos.

Pale Blue Dot is one of my favorite books and this has been on my to read list for years, so I'm in.

Mickey wrote: "I am in, like others I am also watching the new version of Cosmos."

How are you liking it? Did you watch the original?

I watched the first episode of the new Cosmos, and I've recorded the others. But I just haven't felt compelled to watch them. I did watch the original.

I really like NDGT, but somehow the new one just doesn't have the same impact as the original. Maybe because not that much of it is that new to me. Also, I think the animation of the historical segments is a little pedestrian.

Daniel wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I am in, like others I am also watching the new version of Cosmos."

How are you liking it? Did you watch the original?"

I like the new show and it is like a breath of fresh air. Every episode seems to dispel some religious aspect of creationism (which is fine with me).

Yes, I also liked the original show with Sagan. It has been a long time ago and I remember he also to tried to dispel some religious aspects. If memory serves me, I remember a sceen where he is standing on the roof of a building and ridiculing astrology and thier belief.

I use to like shows on PBS like NOVA, but PBS seems to have been reduced to junk science shows.

Also I'm reading Demon Haunted World, but I'm finding it dragging. I keep thinking "Well, duh..." Well written, but not really informing. But I'm only about half way through.

Kathy wrote: "Just started and read the Preface. Beautiful writing. This is my first Sagan read."

This will be my first Carl Sagan too and I'm looking forward to it. Although I'm in the middle of Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality and am enjoying it I will finish it first. Because I've never seen either Cosmos there probably won't be any "duh" moments for me. lol

Mickey wrote: "I use to like shows on PBS like NOVA, but PBS seems to have been reduced to junk science shows."

Budgetary constraints have wreaked havoc over there. They've been reduced to beggars and it shows in their programming.

There are still a few good ones here and there. I just watched the final episode of "Your Inner Fish" it was good. As far as the New Cosmos....I think it's been hit and miss, some episodes good, others less so.

Daniel wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I use to like shows on PBS like NOVA, but PBS seems to have been reduced to junk science shows."

Budgetary constraints have wreaked havoc over there. They've been reduced to beggar..."

The Koch Brothers that are big doners to PBS NOVA as advertised on the show. I wonder if they are restricting the content of the show. Almost nothing about age of the earth, space, evolution or Environmental issues.

Betsy wrote: "Also I'm reading Demon Haunted World, but I'm finding it dragging. I keep thinking "Well, duh..." Well written, but not really informing. But I'm only about half way through."

It's not really one of those "here's a brand new Theory Of Everything" kind of books, but I don't consider that a bad thing necessarily.

Much probably also depends on your general background of information. For instance, for some reason (our US national culture, no doubt)I had never heard the second half of the crop circles story. It was always left out there to dangle like a giant unsolvable riddle. I find those kinds of tidbits informative in a 'that's interesting' kind of way, though the information isn't shattering.

I suppose I view the book much more as a kind of call to arms, a request to recognize that science is the greatest idea in the history of human endeavor, the one from which virtually every other idea worth anything descends. And, having recognized, to look to elevate it further by each playing a role in it's development by becoming scientists ourselves in one or another fields and making discoveries of our own (for those of career-deciding age), or just by bringing more of the scientific mindset into our daily lives and letting it enrich us by it's very nature. The average person being more rationally skeptical could have massive impacts on culture overnight, as one example. Improving our science education would have a huge impact only a few short years away, as another.

It's easy to comparmentalize so that we hold different areas of our lives to different standards. I think that behavior is worth challenging.

Daniel wrote: "....I suppose I view the book much more as a kind of call to arms, a request to recognize that science is the greatest idea in the history of human endeavor, the one from which virtually every other idea worth anything descends. And, having recognized, to look to elevate it further by each playing a role in it's development by becoming scientists ourselves in one or another fields and making discoveries of our own (for those of career-deciding age), or just be bringing more of the scientific mindset into our daily lives ..."

This. The book is about the scientific process and mindset and its place in society/government/everyday life.

Mickey wrote: "The Koch Brothers that are big doners to PBS NOVA as advertised on the show. I wonder if they are restricting the content of the show. Almost nothing about age of the earth, space, evolution or Environmental issues."

I was just reading a story recently that was very disturbing about how they had wrangled a kind of unofficial editorial control over the full content and used it to completely turn an information piece into propaganda for their perspective.

Betsy wrote: "I watched the first episode of the new Cosmos, and I've recorded the others. But I just haven't felt compelled to watch them. I did watch the original.

I really like NDGT, but somehow the new ..."

I'm enjoying the series, but I agree with you about the art. I chalk it up a lack of budget. Frankly, I'm amazed FOX even allowed this on the network.

Stan wrote: "I'm enjoying the series, but I agree with you about the art. I chalk it up a lack of budget. Frankly, I'm amazed FOX even allowed this on the network. "

I agree about the animation, though oddly, as the series carried on and it happened less and less, I started missing it a little. There's no good explanation for it, but it happened.

I'm also surprised Fox aired the show. I guess at this point they'll do just about anything Seth asks since he's a veritable cash machine for them these days.

Stan wrote: "...I'm enjoying the series, but I agree with you about the art. I chalk it up a lack of budget. Frankly, I'm amazed FOX even allowed this on the network. ..."

It was because of their cash-cow Seth MacFarlane...

and though I don't care for the cartoons either, I think it is a deliberate choice to appeal to the graphic novel contingent.

Betsy wrote: "Also I'm reading Demon Haunted World, but I'm finding it dragging. I keep thinking "Well, duh..." Well written, but not really informing. But I'm only about half way through."

Betsy, I am feeling the same way. Although Sagan's writing is easy to read and pleasant, I feel like, so far, there is nothing new here. I am now on the part about the Dragon in the Garage, which is cool, but I feel like I've heard this before too. To be fair, probably later writers have quoted and borrowed from The Demon-Haunted World, so maybe it was pretty original when it came out.

Kathy wrote: "Just started and read the Preface. Beautiful writing. This is my first Sagan read.

I loved when he talked about his dad being his mediator and continuing to write numerals for him while he took h..."


That's an interesting comment, Kathy, about the hopeful and sleek portrayal of the future at that time. I remember as a child watching "The Jetsons" and as a teenager going to Epcot and Tomorrowland and all that. It occurs to me that many of recent movies about the future paint kind of a scary messed-up picture. Clones are raised for replacement body parts, plagues, wars or environmental disasters have reduced big cities to rubble (infested by slinking zombies and a few "good guys" just trying to get by, and that movie based in South Africa ... was is "District 9" or District 12?.... where shrimp faced aliens are subject to apartheid treatment. Kind of different from what I grew up with!

I enjoyed reading The Demon-Haunted World very much. Sagan was a great popularizer of science issues. Many people have forgotten how influential he was while he was alive, in science and some political issues.

Here is my review.

Nancy wrote: .That's an interesting comment, Kathy, about the hopeful and sleek portrayal of the future at that time. I remember as a child watching "The Jetsons" and as a teenager going to Epcot and Tomorrowland and all that. It occurs to me that many of recent movies about the future paint kind of a scary messed-up picture. Clones are raised for replacement body parts, plagues, wars or environmental disasters have reduced big cities to rubble (infested by slinking zombies and a few "good guys" just trying to get by, and that movie based in South Africa ... was is "District 9" or District 12?.... where shrimp faced aliens are subject to apartheid treatment. Kind of different from what I grew up with."

Science and technology are always double-edged swords - the potential for good and the potential for evil; and unintended consequences. The 1960s and 1970s will filled with material riches but air and water pollution were terrible. A nationwide environmental movement was born. Today, the unintended consequence of medical advances and increasing food production is a global population problem. We are expected to reach a global population of 10 billion which, I think, is testing the limits of the carrying capacity of the planet. With this large / enormous human population comes - naturally - more pollution and increased demand for food, water and energy. We had better hope that global warming and rising sea levels don't proceed as fast as some scientists are predicting.

Nancy wrote: "That's an interesting comment, Kathy, about the hopeful and sleek portrayal of the future at that time. I remember as a child watching "The Jetsons" and as a teenager going to Epcot and Tomorrowland and all that. It occurs to me that many of recent movies about the future paint kind of a scary messed-up picture. Clones are raised for replacement body parts, plagues, wars or environmental disasters have reduced big cities to rubble (infested by slinking zombies and a few "good guys" just trying to get by, and that movie based in South Africa ... was is "District 9" or District 12?.... where shrimp faced aliens are subject to apartheid treatment. Kind of different from what I grew up with! "

I agree about this. It's sad that we've repainted the future with lead. Of course problems are coming, but we used to look at that and know we'd solve them, then set about doing the hard work to solve them. Now we just expect failure and don't bother trying.

Obviously, I'm not talking about everyone, but a large portion of the population which is heavily influenced by news programs that only sell fear and movies that have given up on the idea of a bright future as anything worth entertaining.

We live in a world that too often assumes that because something is new it's bad and the journey is from one boogeyman to the next. Examples: Anybody suddenly diagnose themselves as being allergic to gluten? How about those people that use the term "artificial sweeteners" as an insult, as if saying that proves they are bad? Oh and now people are scared of vaccines!

At a certain point, it stops being silly and starts being dangerous (whether you're talking about anti-vaxxers or global warming denial).

It seems to me this book's core message has never been more important than it is now.

Re wrote: "We are expected to reach a global population of 10 billion which, I think, is testing the limits of the carrying capacity of the planet. With this large / enormous human population comes - naturally - more pollution and increased demand for food, water and energy."

This is a strong argument for why rationality and science are more important than ever.

Daniel wrote: "We live in a world that too often assumes that because something is new it's bad and the journey is from one boogeyman to the next. Examples: Anybody suddenly diagnose themselves as being allergic to gluten? How about those people that use the term "artificial sweeteners" as an insult, as if saying that proves they are bad? Oh and now people are scared of vaccines!"

I am one of the millions of people that can no longer consume wheat. I now have to follow a low FODMAP ( gluten free) diet. The Complete Low-Fodmap Diet: A Revolutionary Plan for Managing Ibs and Other Digestive Disorders. This book discusses the reason why this is happening. Modern strains of wheat are high in Fructans ( long chain molucles of fructose). It is not the gluten, it is the Fructans that causes my skin rashes when consuming the new strains of wheat based products. Heritage wheat grains was a balanced sugar (equal amounts of glucose and fructose). Also foods many years ago used cane sugar ( a blanced sugar) as a sweetener. Now it is "High Fructose Corn Syrup) in just about everything: beverage, jams and much more.

Many people cannot digest the vast amount of Fructans. Balanced sweetners was digested properly. Not only skin rashes but diabetes and many other diseases is on the rise. These new strains of modified foods are destroying many many lives. This is why am into gardening and cooking with heirloom foods and my skin rashes are gone.

This is why food labeling is so important. However, the food industry is desperate to avoid the lable GMO and are out to change the meaning of that word. Like buying eggs, the word "Organic" is Meaningless, then "Cage Free" and now one has to look for "Pasture raised".

I can consume "heritage" wheat with no problems but it very hard to find and getting very expensive. One now has to belong a Co-op to get the better foods.

Oh and not just self diagnosis, a test called the " hydrogen breath test" may determine if this is your problem.

And just because it is new does not mean the food is safe!

Nancy wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Just started and read the Preface. Beautiful writing. This is my first Sagan read.

I loved when he talked about his dad being his mediator and continuing to write numerals for him w..."

Have you noticed in the seventies when people were losing jobs to robots and automation, robots in the movies were the bad guys. Alien (robot doctor was protecting the alien and harming the crew). 2001 ( HAL 9000) killing the crew off), Terminator (Destroy the human race).

Then it all changes, money from the tech industry. Alien 2 (robot was the good guy and saved the day). 2010 ( HAL was exonerated and was bad humans, HAL was the good robot) and Terminator 2, awww, the govenator was the good robot).

In the past we were afraid of technology, today we embrace it. I will say that technology has always been the main reason for the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer). I do believe the human race is on a precipice of change.

I cannot wait to get a new pair of google glasses to wear in public :)

Mickey wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I use to like shows on PBS like NOVA, but PBS seems to have been reduced to junk science shows."

Budgetary constraints have wreaked havoc over there. They've been re..."

Well, how about "Your Inner Fish" - three solid hours of evolution. Their "Nature" programs are educational and I think when people see how nature works they are more likely to be open to evolution. As to funding by Koch - it's a struggle for PBS to keep editorial idependence and in this case at least they did great.

Sara Van Dyck wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I use to like shows on PBS like NOVA, but PBS seems to have been reduced to junk science shows."

Budgetary constraints have wreaked havoc over there. ..."

I did not watch those episodes. It does remind me of the new Cosmos show where the publishers spent all their money on the "History of Fish" book that did not sell well. Where Newton's self published book "Principia" was a hot seller.

Mickey wrote: "And just because it is new does not mean the food is safe!"

My concern is not to make assumptions in either direction. That's the rational position. That said, the greater issue in our time is people making the assumption that new = bad. In fact, I'm not sure I've encountered anyone making the opposite assumption.

I don't want this conversation to get sidetracked from the book, but as for GMOs, I do think there's value in labeling when it comes to a rational consumer base. Right now, that is not what we have. That's not to say I'm against it, but it is important to note.

There are also legitimate issues with determining what gets labeled as GMO. People have been cross-breeding plants for much of post-agricultural history. Do all of those plants count as GMO? They have been genetically modified by an outside force and are not in their "original state". If so, we're talking about nearly everything you find in a produce section, even the so-called "heirloom varietals" have nearly all been modified at some point. Generally, when people talk about the labeling, they just mean recently modified (though there doesn't seem to be any particular rationale for this) or done by certain groups or done in labs or some other non-specific criteria which doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan on Monsanto, but it's important to look carefully at what GMO really means.

The idea that GMOs are automatically evil is simply not supported by any measure of rationality or facts. In fact, the favorite punching bag right now (wheat), which is a GMO, is an innovation that SAVED A BILLION LIVES. It's important to understand that. Genetically modifying wheat saved a billion human lives. I don't doubt that some people get tummy aches from it, but I'll take that price and so should anyone else. If you don't like it, don't eat it. And obviously, if you've been diagnosed by a real medical professional with Celiac or some other condition, then you should certainly avoid it, but people with valid diagnoses from real medical practitioners are not the people I was talking about.

How are you liking the book?

Mickey wrote: "I will say that technology has always been the main reason for the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer)."

This is actually a fairly recent shift. It's the product of the industrial revolution where technology and systems became the greatest producer of wealth as opposed to land ownership which had been the biggest wealth determiner since at least the middle ages.

It's one of those really fascinating shifts in the direction of humankind.

Daniel wrote: "Mickey wrote: "And just because it is new does not mean the food is safe!"

My concern is not to make assumptions in either direction. That's the rational position. That said, the greater issue i..."

You've made some good points, Micky. I think GMO's are inevitable in hungry areas of the world, but it would be a good idea to set aside a huge growing area, perhaps Australia, for heritage crops.

Stan wrote: "I think GMO's are inevitable in hungry areas of the world, but it would be a good idea to set aside a huge growing area, perhaps Australia, for heritage crops."

I guess my point is, why is there a collective assumption that because it's a GMO it is bad (a necessary evil perhaps, but still we must be careful to use something else for those that can afford to avoid GMOs).

In a sense, all modern crops are GMO, the only differences between "non-GMO" (or natural, organic, etc.) and "GMO" are the timescales and the technology utilized. The modern strawberry for example, whether GMO or not, has been "genetically-modified" via human culturing over the years--well, centuries, to be fair.

The fear is probably that the changes in GMO foods are too much too fast, with negative externalities. Or that the companies developing GMO foods engineer them more for profit than for sustainability or biological viability. Which, to be fair, are valid concerns.

But the fact is GMO is already supporting our society, as Norman Borlaug I believe has amply demonstrated.

Jonathan wrote: "In a sense, all modern crops are GMO, the only differences between "non-GMO" (or natural, organic, etc.) and "GMO" are the timescales and the technology utilized. The modern strawberry for example, whether GMO or not, has been "genetically-modified" via human culturing over the years--well, centuries, to be fair."

This is an important point, which is why there are inherent problems in labeling GMOs, since you'd have to label everything as such or pick some arbitrary difference (how long ago it was made, if a modern lab was used or an old lab, etc) and more or less lie about everything else.

Jonathan wrote: "The fear is probably that the changes in GMO foods are too much too fast, with negative externalities. Or that the companies developing GMO foods engineer them more for profit than for sustainability or biological viability. Which, to be fair, are valid concerns."

I'm not convinced that they are valid concerns. Or, rather that the ones that are valid are valid for reasons other than the GMO-ness of the item in question. "Too fast" is not a valid concern unless there is some other factor in which case that other factor is the problem. Being developed for profit is not a problem unless they are dangerous in which case the danger is the problem not the GMO-ness. Sustainability is a problem in an of itself without involving GMOs. The valid concern area boils down to a basic question: is it safe/healthy? I can't see any reason the default position should be to assume it's not without evidence when a slightly different version of that same plant is considered safe/healthy. It seems only reasonable to expect there to be real evidence to consider it unsafe/unhealthy.

Daniel wrote: "The idea that GMOs are automatically evil is simply not supported by any measure of rationality or facts. In fact, the favorite punching bag right now (wheat), which is a GMO, is an innovation that SAVED A BILLION LIVES."

I disagree with that statement. If anyone that saved (created) a billion more lives, it belongs to Nobel Prize winner Fritz Haber in 1920. He figured out how to make synthetic nitrogen from fossil fuels. The birth of modern fertilizers that was able to vastly produce more food. Also in the process adding to global warming (I know a touchy subject with some).

Modern Agraculture was able to vastly create greater yields per acre. However, through technology many farmers went out of business. But such a system with artifical fertilizers with high yields are not sustainable. When the fossil fuels and micro minerals run out, billions more could (will) starve.

Also a big concern, if like some humans (like me) get sick from these modern strains of produce ends up harming the bees, then the human race is screwed as two thirds of the worlds produce is from bee polination. I believe that GMO's must be proven beyond a doubt before mass production not to harm the bees in any way shape or form.

I think GMO crops/foods are important to society, and agriculture is not my field, but I'd argue that there are valid concerns, including with the basic biology.

Starting with the profit concern; I agree that this does not have to do with the science or "GMO-ness" and is correctable, but the reality is that GMO crops/products are controlled by a certain industry populated by certain companies, and as modern for-profit corporations today, they are driven to some degree to maintain financial stability and improve profits. One way to do so is to make the GMO crops have higher yields than "natural"/"non-GMO" crops, but to make them sterile and unable to breed, i.e. the seeds are useless. This has already happened historically, and has significant consequences to the consuming farmers, i.e. their primary customers.

More fundamentally, one problem with the basic biology of GMO crops is to make them too water-conserving, too-durable, etc. so that they out-compete local flora, and left unmanaged, destroy or reduce local and/or global biodiversity. This is a valid and significant concern.

Another basic biology/sustainability concern could be that the GMO crops extract excessive minerals from the soil. Again, this is of concern.

So again, while I agree with you that GMO is fundamental and important to modern society, there are valid concerns we should properly address. Food safety can be regulated by the FDA, but there are other issues than that.

Message #47 is addressed to Daniel. Mickey, I agree with most of the content of your #46; although I would state that GMO is already in mass production.

Jonathan wrote: "Message #47 is addressed to Daniel. Mickey, I agree with most of the content of your #46; although I would state that GMO is already in mass production."

Time will tell if the future generations will, or may, pay the price. It is also possible that science can correct the mistakes of the past. Or the human race will adapt to living on earth simular to mars. I am for slightly increasing people's (not mine) taxes to pay for such research.

Mickey wrote: "I disagree with that statement. If anyone that saved (created) a billion more lives, it belongs to Nobel Prize winner Fritz Haber in 1920. He figured out how to make synthetic nitrogen from fossil fuels. The birth of modern fertilizers that was able to vastly produce more food. Also in the process adding to global warming (I know a touchy subject with some)."

I'm sorry. I'm not clear about what you're saying. You're saying that the development of dwarf wheat (a GMO) by Normal Borlaug did not save a billion lives? How many do you propose it did save?

Or are you saying that GMOs are automatically evil?

Mickey wrote: "I believe that GMO's must be proven beyond a doubt before mass production not to harm the bees in any way shape or form."

Your expectation is the impossible (to prove a negative)? On what basis are such impossible standards justified? Do you have solid evidence that it does harm bees or are you just assuming it does because it is slightly different than the version that has caused no trouble for bees for thousands of years?