Spider Star
The human colony on the planet Argo has long explored and exploited the technology left behind by an extinct alien race. But then an archaeology team accidentally activates a terrible weapon...
Read More.Praise for Star Dragon
"Seldom does a storytelling talent come along as potent and fully mature as Mike Brotherton. His complex characters take you on a voyage that is both fiercely credible and astonishingly imaginative. This is Science Fiction."
-- David Brin"Star Dragon is terrific fare, offering readers a fusion of hard science and grand adventure."
-- Locus Magazine"Star Dragon is steeped in cosmology, the physics of interstellar travel, exobiology, artificial intelligence, bioscience. Brotherton, author of many scientific articles in refereed journals, has written a dramatic, provocative, utterly convincing hard science sf novel that includes an ironic twist that fans will love."
-- Booklist starred review"Readers hungry for the thought-provoking extrapolation and rigorous technical detail of old-fashioned hard SF are sure to enjoy astronomer Brotherton's first novel."
-- Publishers Weekly"Mike Brotherton, himself a trained astrophysicist, combines the technical acuity and ingenuity of Robert Forward with the ironic, postmodern stance and style of M. John Harrison. In this, his debut novel, those twin talents unite to produce a work that is involving on any number of levels. It's just about all you could ask for in a hardcore SF adventure."
-- Paul di Fillippo, SCI-FI.COM
Search
Scientists, Sagan, Sincerity
November 5th, 2009
We’ll keep with the “S” theme as this post today is related to yesterday’s.
Apparently a group is trying to start up a “Carl Sagan Day” on Saturday, November 7th, which would have been his 75th anniversary. Sagan was a good scientist and top-rate popularizer of science, through books and TV. In light of yesterday’s post, I was thinking about why he was so effective, and it must be his heart. The guy reeked of sincerity, consistently pushing a consistent agenda of science, reason, and reality. He reached people in large numbers, and didn’t need to resort to intuition, humor, or sex appeal to get them to listen.
Even though he reached larger audiences with a science message, he was still a specialized taste and never quite a superstar to the public at large, in my opinion.
I am amazed at some of the comparisons made with Sagan today. Sagan was an atheist and not at all superstitious, and was not circumspect about this. Yet somehow Richard Dawkins today is “militant” and “strident” in a way good old Carl wasn’t. Except Sagan said things like this:
“A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.”
“Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”
“The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right. You can’t all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It’s a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I’m not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they’re called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation.”
“In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
I think Sagan’s heartfelt sincerity kept his clear and harsh criticisms of religion, despite writing an entire book on the topic, more socially acceptable than Dawkins who, generally speaking, only appeals at the intellectual level. Science is so counter-intuitive sometimes, and intrinsically beyond humor and sex appeal for the unitiated (see The Big Bang Theory for the best attempt to date), that maybe heartfelt sincerity is the best and most consistent way of penetrating larger audiences. I’ve heard people look at some of the current would-be replacements for Sagan (Dawkins, Neil de Grasse Tyson, etc.) and find them lacking in comparison.
Is Sagan the model? Sincerity? It seems to dampen the arrogance that much of the public associates with scientists, which ridiculously makes them throw out science just because they dislike arrogance. For instance: Yes, Scientists do much Good, but a World Run by these Arrogant Gods would be Hell on Earth. WTF? It really irritates some people that science often comes up with ideas that challenge their intuition and don’t want to sugarcoat the news or accept that a knee-jerk reaction should be given equal time in comparison to a serious scientific study.
So, is Sagan the best model? Can you get away with speaking the truth more easily if you’re friendly, serious, and obviously consistently sincere about it? Or do people need to be shaken up? And is it fair to call a guy who merely writes words and speaks the truth like he sees it, without using violent langage, be called “militant” or “strident?” Does it matter if people are turned off the message by the messenger? Or is it the message?
Or do we need to delve more deeply into humor like Brian Malow, the science comedian? Or develop more sexy spokespeople for science and reason like Kari Byron of Mythbusters?
I’m wondering about the best methods myself. Maybe I should start asking for jokes and bikini shots with Launch Pad applications. Hmmm…maybe I can pull that off if I am very, very sincere.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Sagan and Dawkins have both been big influences on my thinking. But, whereas Sagan was a huge influence on my entire worldview, mainly through my exposure to his Cosmos series as a child (well, I was 12 or 13 when my local PBS station carried that series), Dawkins is only a profound influence on my understanding of evolution and biology. There were/are many good biologists who write fine essays and inspirational tracts: E.O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Lewis Thomas, . . . heck, you can go back to William Bartram and Darwin himself, or Alfred Russel Wallace. But when it comes to physicists and astronomers there just haven’t been as many. Richard Feynman is the only one who comes to mind as an especially influential writer, although I certain know many of us have been inspired by Freeman Dyson, Fritjof Capra, Stephen Hawking, or Roger Penrose. Yet, somehow these physicists and astronomers just don’t get the same sort of attention that the life scientists get.
And although I owe a great debt to both Sagan and Dawkins, I’ve got to admit that to me they both seem to have suffered from cases of arrogance that rose to the level of foolishness (has Dawkins been cured of this?) Sagan was supposedly an insufferable, imperious person. Somehow Dawkins draws people in who want to engage him with his hubris, while Sagan seems to have just turned people off, or invited ridicule for his earnest enthusiasm.
I’m all for earnest enthusiasm, especially in science. I think it better to be careful with the way we ridicule fools and the willfully stupid. Preaching to the choir won’t win any converts, and in a world full of stupidity we need to win more people over to rational, informed thought and intellectual curiosity.
This post of yours reminds me how years ago Dawkins would mail out a software program to go along with his “Blind Watchmaker” book. It was a fun evolution simulation. You can play it now on the web. http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/mirror/biomorph/
I think the major difference between the two is that Sagan hoped that those hearing his message would take something away from it, while Dawkins wants to be in people’s faces, making them uncomfortable and reactionary.
I just love the “arrogance” comeback. Being right is arrogant, therefore, we can ignore the message.
Paraphrasing that great philosopher of the common man – Rebecca Howe from Cheers – most of the human race is just too stupid to live.
I’ve given up on the kind, sincere, reasonable approach: the folks who will buy it have already done so and the ones who’s heads are buried in the 1st century would still rather burn you at the stake for heresy. I’d much rather be accused of arrogance while actually being arrogant. And, like Dawkins in many ways, I’ve simply gotten tired of the idiocy and its pernicious infiltration of just about every aspect of our society.
On the other hand – I enjoy watching both Sagan and Dawkins dishing it out. Sagan quietly hiding the vegetables and sneaking them in, Dawkins shoving their faces into the soup bowl.
I *have* gotten sick of people who don’t know either science or theology/religion getting bold-faced on the topic. Anti-theism doesn’t make you a “modern” person. The issues with religion is largly affected in the same way most topics are by the fact that most humans are too stupid to live. Me, personally, I’m atheist, but I’m anti-superstition, not anti-religion. In the sense that religion embodies superstitious thoughts, I am against it. However, much of religion isn’t really susceptible to rational thought one way or another–and trying to apply rational thought is more or less like trying to apply empiricism to one of Salvadore Dali’s melty clocks. Forgetting to make these distinctions may allow us to miss the real target of our animosity, superstition, which can pop up anywheres, even in science topics.
Oh, and one last thing, it would be great if PZ Myers stopped using that retrofitted anti-NoTrueScotsman thingy. The Courtesian’s Reply is a wretched argument to make. You either call someone out for trying to do a Chewbacca Defense or you accept that you have to argue on philosophical or theological grounds on occasion and do an Ann Hutchinson style smackdown.
A few nights ago there was a Horizon program on BBC2 in which several leading physicists admitted that they cannot explain what ultimately happens inside a black hole. This was a good example of where the specialists in the field – those who are viewed by many as being themselves incomprehensible – are admitting to being perplexed (and communicating it in a clear way). So rather than scientists claiming science has – or even will have – all the answers, but instead leaving the possibility that a mystery may never be solved and remain beyond human comprehension.
It seems that religion is still a long way from dying out when the big questions remain unanswered. And, until a theory is found that explains how gravity can operate at a quantum level, there will still be that gaping hold in our understanding of the universe that many will fill with a god.
I think that what really matters is what method is more effective in making people be rational.
sincerely, I am not all that convinced that Dawkins agressive approach works. Imho, while Sagan ´s approach would make them raise their psychological shields, Dawkins approach makes them raise true psychological FORTS!
when you get agressive, the likelihood people will LISTEN to you is diminished.
As to what approach should be taken I think the obvious answer is “all of the above”.
We need the sincere types (today I’d say Julia Sweeney is a pretty good contemporary example of this sort).
We need the comedians who point out, without pulling their punches, just how absurd religion is. We need the cartoonists like the creator of the brilliant JESUS AND MO who poke fun at the silly arguments religious apologists come up with.
We need South Park.
And hot atheists in bikinis? Oh, absolutely.
I suppose there might be a thin line between sincere and fanaticism though? Sometimes it might be difficult to tell if someone is really sincere. I’m sure politicians are pretty good at sounding sincere when they don’t mean it.
I agree with your appraisal of Sagan, but maybe the word is enthusiasm? I think it’s easier to tell when someone is genuinely enthusiastic about something.
I’m curious to find out what blog system you are using? I’m experiencing
some small security problems with my latest blog and I’d like to find something more secure. Do you have any solutions?