Take a photo of a barcode or cover
master_wanderer 's review for:
The Demon-Haunted World
by Carl Sagan
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.