Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.29 AVERAGE
4.29 AVERAGE
Apesar de ser um livro de mais de 25 anos, as inquietações de Sagan relacionadas ao obscurantismos, superstições e credulidade são mais relevantes do que nunca. Imagino que ciente das maravilhas comunicativas do mundo moderno, sobretudo a internet, esperar-se-ia maior alfabetismo científico e o fim de crenças despropositadas, contudo isso não se manifestou.
O livro exibe uma sucessão de evidências dos demônios que assolam o mundo, alguns mais assustadores do que outros, mas todos eles tão reais quanto o éter.
Essa é uma leitura imprescindível para um primeiro contato com o pensamento e método científico.
O livro exibe uma sucessão de evidências dos demônios que assolam o mundo, alguns mais assustadores do que outros, mas todos eles tão reais quanto o éter.
Essa é uma leitura imprescindível para um primeiro contato com o pensamento e método científico.
A good book on the need to get back to critical thinking and reasoning in this country. However, I think Sagan spent way too much time (i.e. the first half of the book) pounding on UFO believers and alien abductees. There's more than enough pseudoscience and outright quackery to make examples of--constantly hitting one non-moving target is easy.
I read it out of curiosity about all those quotes I see attributed to Carl Sagan. It did not disappoint.
Tip when reading this book:
If you don't believe in alien abductions, go ahead and skip to about the halfway point. Then, since you're already halfway done, go ahead and just skip to the end and move on to something else.
I really really disliked this book for a few reasons. One is that I find Sagan to be a bad writer. This is not a commonly held opinion but his non-fiction is disorganized and aimless.
The real reason I dislike this book is I think it perpetuates a fairly toxic trope of this science versus religion clash. Obviously Sagan, hand in glorious hand with scientists all over the world, sings the praises of the exalted science. I think this is, fundamentally, a false dichotomy. It also obscures some less than savory truths about science and scientists (disclosure - I am, professionally, a scientist and engineer and, religiously, atheistic).
Here's the main point I think Sagan misses - Science is a tool. Calling it a "candle in the dark" gives the impression of a savior, a beacon of hope in an otherwise bleak and dark existence. But there is no moral component to a tool - hammers can be used to bash heads and build schools. For the physics-minded, it strikes me as similar to the difference between "speed" and "velocity". Speed, like science, has no direction. Calling it "a candle in the dark" gives it a direction that it does not inherently posses.
I think this can be seen clearly in the role science has played in environmental destruction. Science has allowed millions and billions of humans to live in close proximity. As a result, the Earth is being destroyed and rendered inhabitable for future generations. Behind every river that gets dammed up, every forest razed for a new sub-development, and every aquifer spoiled by chemical effluent you have a team of engineers. They aren't malicious, but they aren't not malicious either. Science doesn't give them any moral credence, it's simply a tool to bring their ideas to fruition.
I've gone to school and work with many many engineers and scientists. They are not better people than non-scientists. They are not more moral, they are not more just, they are not more fair. If anything, I'd say they are less moral, just, and fair than the humanities scholars and professionals I've dealt with.
I find this lofty elevation of science and STEM over all other fields tiresome, annoying, and misinformed. Science directed by morality is an awfully powerful tool for good. But, then again, so are the religious millions donating time, money, and services to the impoverished. The key principle here is not religion or science, it's morality.
Sagan does nothing to make that connection. It would maybe be interesting and Sam Harris-esque (oh, so not interesting, tedious, and pretension? Never mind...) if he were to argue that some aspect of science gives in inherent morality. But he doesn't even try. Scientists designed nuclear bombs. There was no one else in the world who possibly could have done that. No armies, no generals, no religious zealots. Einstein did that. Oppenheimer did that. Both men of science, both exalted by Sagan. It's really all the more telling that Oppenheimer had a change of heart post-explosion. The science hadn't changed.
We don't need more science. There is nothing moral about research for the sake of research. We have too many scientists and engineers that serve the machinations of evil and destructive men because they "spent so much time wondering if [they] could, [they] never stopped to think if [they] should". The "should" is critical and it is not inherent to science. It's inherent to morality.
More morality, less science please.
If you don't believe in alien abductions, go ahead and skip to about the halfway point. Then, since you're already halfway done, go ahead and just skip to the end and move on to something else.
I really really disliked this book for a few reasons. One is that I find Sagan to be a bad writer. This is not a commonly held opinion but his non-fiction is disorganized and aimless.
The real reason I dislike this book is I think it perpetuates a fairly toxic trope of this science versus religion clash. Obviously Sagan, hand in glorious hand with scientists all over the world, sings the praises of the exalted science. I think this is, fundamentally, a false dichotomy. It also obscures some less than savory truths about science and scientists (disclosure - I am, professionally, a scientist and engineer and, religiously, atheistic).
Here's the main point I think Sagan misses - Science is a tool. Calling it a "candle in the dark" gives the impression of a savior, a beacon of hope in an otherwise bleak and dark existence. But there is no moral component to a tool - hammers can be used to bash heads and build schools. For the physics-minded, it strikes me as similar to the difference between "speed" and "velocity". Speed, like science, has no direction. Calling it "a candle in the dark" gives it a direction that it does not inherently posses.
I think this can be seen clearly in the role science has played in environmental destruction. Science has allowed millions and billions of humans to live in close proximity. As a result, the Earth is being destroyed and rendered inhabitable for future generations. Behind every river that gets dammed up, every forest razed for a new sub-development, and every aquifer spoiled by chemical effluent you have a team of engineers. They aren't malicious, but they aren't not malicious either. Science doesn't give them any moral credence, it's simply a tool to bring their ideas to fruition.
I've gone to school and work with many many engineers and scientists. They are not better people than non-scientists. They are not more moral, they are not more just, they are not more fair. If anything, I'd say they are less moral, just, and fair than the humanities scholars and professionals I've dealt with.
I find this lofty elevation of science and STEM over all other fields tiresome, annoying, and misinformed. Science directed by morality is an awfully powerful tool for good. But, then again, so are the religious millions donating time, money, and services to the impoverished. The key principle here is not religion or science, it's morality.
Sagan does nothing to make that connection. It would maybe be interesting and Sam Harris-esque (oh, so not interesting, tedious, and pretension? Never mind...) if he were to argue that some aspect of science gives in inherent morality. But he doesn't even try. Scientists designed nuclear bombs. There was no one else in the world who possibly could have done that. No armies, no generals, no religious zealots. Einstein did that. Oppenheimer did that. Both men of science, both exalted by Sagan. It's really all the more telling that Oppenheimer had a change of heart post-explosion. The science hadn't changed.
We don't need more science. There is nothing moral about research for the sake of research. We have too many scientists and engineers that serve the machinations of evil and destructive men because they "spent so much time wondering if [they] could, [they] never stopped to think if [they] should". The "should" is critical and it is not inherent to science. It's inherent to morality.
More morality, less science please.
This is probably one of the most inspirational books I have read. It's not just a book about science, but about hope, politics, religion and about intelligence. It's a book that everybody that is upset about the recent election of Trump should read.
My conclusion is that the world is a great awe-inspiring place where we have a lot of phenomena difficult to explain. But we have instruments and learned individuals that can help us interpret what we are seeing and experiencing.
There is hope, yes, there is hope. But we need to fight to restore the importance of science and education in our society. That is particularly important in a time where people who are frankly hostile to science will have the keys to the kingdom and they are counting on our ignorance to keep all of us "in our place".
My conclusion is that the world is a great awe-inspiring place where we have a lot of phenomena difficult to explain. But we have instruments and learned individuals that can help us interpret what we are seeing and experiencing.
There is hope, yes, there is hope. But we need to fight to restore the importance of science and education in our society. That is particularly important in a time where people who are frankly hostile to science will have the keys to the kingdom and they are counting on our ignorance to keep all of us "in our place".
I sincerely love Sagan and his work, I really did love this book too. I get a little iffy when authors start to sound like they're taking a Richard Dawkins take on religion, just because those hot-takes are usually not very philosophically sound (even though I am an atheist). Sometimes Sagan veers into 14-year-old-atheist-reading-the-bible-out-loud-with-a-snarky-tone land, which is pretty boring, only because it's such an easy straw man to fabricate. It is still a good book though, it just made me roll my eyes a lot.
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
A thorough defense of skepticism and the scientific method. It repeats itself a little bit, perhaps as it's based on opinion columns, but it's worth it in the end.
The inimitable Sagan, genius science writer and communicator, laying it all out for you back in 1995:
"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.
"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.