THE QUOTABLE SAGAN
The nature of science:
Science is an astonishment and a delight. Science arouses a soaring sense of wonder. But so does pseudoscience. Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. Science -- pure science, science not for any practical application but for its own sake -- is a deeply emotional matter for those who practice it, as well as for those non-scientists who every now and then dip in to see what has been discovered lately. . . . has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? Science is different from many another human enterprise . . . in its passion for forming testable hypotheses, in its search for definitive experiments that confirm or deny ideas, in the vigor of its substantive debate, and in its willingness to abandon ideas that have been found wanting. It is the particular task of scientists, I believe, to alert the public to possible dangers, especially those emanating from science or foreseeable through the use of science. Such a mission is, you might say, prophetic. At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof, are veridically worthless. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out a train of reasoning but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true. What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct and to understand a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument.
scientific literacy:
We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. In all uses of science it is insufficient, indeed it is dangerous, to produce only a small highly competent, well rewarded priesthood of professionals. Instead some fundamental understandings of the findings and methods of science must be available on the broadest scale. How can we affect national policy -- or even make intelligent decisions in our own lives -- if we don't grasp the underlying issues? The consequences of scientific illiteracy are far more dangerous in our time than in any that came before. I want us to stop turning out leaden, incurious, uncritical, and unimaginative high school seniors. Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic of understanding of how the world works. Since nearly all support for science comes from the public coffers, it would be an odd flirtation with suicide for scientists to oppose competent popularization. What the public understands and appreciates it is far more likely to support. When training is unchanged for immense periods of time traditions are passed on intact to the next generation. But when what needs to be learned changes quickly, especially in the course of a single generation, it becomes much harder to know what to teach and how to teach it. During the Great Depression, teachers enjoyed job security, good salaries, respectability. Teaching was an admired profession, partly because learning was recognized as the road out of poverty.
The unprecedented powers that science now makes available must be accompanied by unprecedented levels of ethical focus and concern by the science community as well as the most broadly based public education into the importance of science and democracy. Science, I maintain, is an absolutely essential tool for any society with a hope of surviving well into the next century with its fundamental values intact -- not just science as engaged in by its practitioners but science understood and embraced by the entire human community. And if the scientists will not bring this about who will? We live in a complex age where many of the problems we face can, whatever their origins, only have solutions that involve a deep understanding of science and technology. Modern society desperately needs the finest minds available to devise solutions to these problems.
applied research:
Basic research is when scientists are free to pursue their curiosity and interrogate nature, not with any short-term practical end in view but to seek knowledge for its own sake. It is in society's interest to support such research. This is how the major discoveries that benefit humanity are largely made. A necessary aspect of basic research is that its applications lie in the future -- sometimes even centuries ahead. What's more, no one knows what aspect of basic research will have practical value and which will not. Industrial applications are excellent. But applications of what? Fundamental research, research into the heart of nature is the means by which we acquire the new knowledge that gets applied. Urging major practical inventions while discouraging curiosity-driven research would be spectacularly counter-productive. The trouble is that ordering someone to go out and make a specific invention hardly guarantees that it gets done. Cutting off fundamental curiosity-driven science is like eating seed corn. [emphasis added]
the bill of rights and science:
Through lowered educational standards, declining intellectual competence, diminished zest for substantive debate, and social sanctions against skepticism, our liberties can be slowly eroded and our rights subverted. The Founders understood this well. Now it's no good to have such rights if they are not used -- a right of free speech when no one contradicts the government, freedom of the press when no one is willing to ask the tough questions, a right of assembly when there are no protests, universal suffrage when less than half the electorate votes, separation of church and State when the wall of separation is not regularly repaired. Through disuse they can become no more than votive objects, patriotic lip service. Rights and freedoms. Use 'em or lose 'em. In every country we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community of spirit. In the demon haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.
the future:
There is no nation on earth today optimized for the middle of the twenty-first century. We face an abundance of subtle and complex problems. We therefore need subtle and complex solutions. How confident are we that the power to drive and determine public opinion will always reside in responsible hands? Some portion of the decision-making that influences the future of our civilization is plainly in the hands of charlatans. An extraterrestrial being, newly arrived on earth . . . might easily conclude that we are intent on teaching them [children] murder, rape, cruelty, superstition, credulity and consumerism. We keep at it and through constant repetition many of them finally get it. What kind of society could we create if, instead, we drummed into them science and a sense of hope?
miscellaneous:
Certain kinds of folk knowledge are valid and priceless. Ethnomedicine, yes. Astrophysics, no. It is certainly true that all beliefs and myths are worthy of a respectful hearing. It is not true that all folk beliefs are equally valid. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Valid criticism does you a favor. Really, it's OK to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.
Home Winter 97 Full Screen
Winter 97 - Articles: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27The TEACHERS CLEARINGHOUSE FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY EDUCATION