Carl Sagan: Underappreciated Genius

[RedBlackAttack]

You know...

I got to thinking the other day about how much I was inspired in my youth by Carl Sagan's book and television series 'Cosmos.' It was ground-breaking stuff, in that an astronomer was actually able to cross over and achieve mass appeal, celebrity and bring incredibly complex astronomical and cosmological principles to the masses.

I hadn't revisited Carl in some time, so I decided to grab my old 'Cosmos' book and flip to some of my favorite parts. I also did a search on youtube which yielded some great results. It seems that I'm not the only Sagan disciple out there.

He wasn't just one of science's greatest geniuses of all-time... He wasn't just an astronomer... He was a teacher... He was a philosopher.

In that very monotone voice, he could deliver some of the most impactful, life-altering messages in just a few syllables. In my brief time at Ohio State, I took a moderately advanced astronomy class from a guy who is a big wig in the current field (he had published several books and was highly thought of). He said that, in his few contacts with Sagan before he died in the mid-90s, he was totally awestruck by the manner in which Sagan's genius was delivered.

I think his exact quote was, "I asked him a question and, totally off-the-cuff, Sagan didn't even think before answering in the most poignant fashion that he had ever seen. It took me a week to even fully understand what Sagan had told me. It would have taken me years to deliver the kind of answer that he gave me after thinking for just mere seconds."

That is how I always thought of Sagan, as well... Sort of a computer with vast amounts of stored information that he could access without even thinking.

Also, although some of his astronomy is very bleak (his thoughts on the afterlife could make us feel very alone), his scientific ideals were always delivered in a way that offered comfort, not emptiness.

Anyway, are there any other Sagan fans on this board?

I'm going to supply you with some clips and I hope that you take the time to watch them. You will be drawn in almost immediately, I'm sure...

Introduction to his book, Pale Blue Dot, read by Carl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmMUuR--Qvo).

More Carl... Dropping mass amounts of knowledge. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJ3Tjj40P8)

Carl discusses the 4th Dimension. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw&feature=related)

What was here before the Big Bang? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34-1W_9BhoU&feature=related)

Carl on Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9dEAx5Sgw&feature=related)

There are loads more great vids on there. Just click through and become blown away by one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century.

:bowdown:

Btw, the thing that got me thinking about this was Benn Jordan's 2008 tribute album to Carl that I recently put back on my playlist.

Here is a cut (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENN285XSw) off of the album. He did Carl justice.

[ZeN]

Great stuff man... repped..

[JohnnySic]

Sagan was a genius. Cosmos is a great read, a must-have book for anyone interested in Astronomy/Philosophy/History/Physics and other branches of science.

[Take Your Lumps]

Great post.

I got the Cosmos 7-disc box set (http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Carl-Sagan-DVD-Set/dp/B000055ZOB) for Christmas last year :pimp:

[InspiredLebowski]

Hulu has each Cosmos episode for free (http://www.hulu.com/search?query=cosmos).

I've always known who he was and that he was a popular astronomer, but my knowledge of him basically ended there. For whatever reason I wiki'd him a week or so and found the Cosmos link on Hulu. Astronomy, secular humanism, and just general proper skepticism lost a pillar when he died. He was so passionate and infinitely knowledgeable while being able to convey his thoughts so easily. He really did seem like a walking Wikipedia.

[pete's montreux]

i desperately need a nap but i'm definitely going to be watching those clips when i wake up. . . good stuff, i can't wait

[MarloStanfield]

Huge marijuana advocate as well (not sure if that's been mentioned). Always been a fan of Sagan but he started to go a little crazy...Demon Haunted World is a tremendous read.

[RidonKs]

that video on the 4th dimension was fantastic. i've been trying to grasp the concept of einstein's curved spacetime since i encountered it in depth for the first time in hawking's book, and that was probably the best breakdown i've seen so far. i guess it still remains a little more abstract in my brain than i'd like it to be, although i suppose a full grasp can never be attained given its nature. still, i hadn't yet encountered an explanation involving the progression from 2d to 3d to help make the similar progression from 3d to 4d, so that was pretty cool. i might have to watch it again.

the other videos are obviously pretty phenomenal as well, given their vast vast scale. i'm going to check out the cosmos series and perhaps pick up a book - i'm still trying to work my way through 'brief history of time' (i'm only about 3-4 chapters in, although i've read those 3-4 chapters about a half dozen times by now lol). i've also got 'the universe in a nutshell' on the backburner, but after that i'd definitely like to check out some stuff by sagan. like inspiredlebowski, i had heard the name before revolving around astrophysics and cosmology, but never actually gone in depth.

thanks for the links rba.



Huge marijuana advocate as well (not sure if that's been mentioned)
this is awesome. it's mentioned in his wiki article, although only in passing. what of his work makes you say he went off the edge, marlo? something like that might be even more fascinating than his calculated science that was in the videos. it might be even more fun to read while high, assuming he was in the same state of mind when he wrote it. lol

[God Shamgod]

I love watching his show The Cosmo's it just blows my mind... Michio Kaku is cool as hell too I listen to his podcast every once in a while.

[ashar008]

Wow awesome fined. Been looking for this clips.

[Take Your Lumps]

I love watching his show The Cosmo's it just blows my mind... Michio Kaku is cool as hell too I listen to his podcast every once in a while.

Kaku's BBC docu on time was amazing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/time.shtml

While we're on the topic of contemporary intellectuals, let's show some love to Neil deGrasse Tyson. Love that man and NOVA scienceNOW is an incredible program.

[Take Your Lumps]

Came across this interesting little bit of info about Tyson and Sagan crossing paths on Neil's wiki page...very cool.


Astronomer Carl Sagan, who was a faculty member at Cornell University, tried to recruit Tyson to Cornell for undergraduate studies.[5] During an interview with the writer, Daniel Simone, (See the entire interview in the November 2, 2007 issue of Dan's Papers,[6]) Dr. Tyson said, "Interestingly, when I applied to Cornell, my application dripped of my passion for the study and research of the Universe. Somehow the admissions office brought my application to the attention of the late Mr. Sagan, and he actually took the inititiative and care to contact me. He was very inspirational and a most powerful influence. Mr. Sagan was as great as the universe, an effective mentor."

[RedBlackAttack]

Huge marijuana advocate as well (not sure if that's been mentioned). Always been a fan of Sagan but he started to go a little crazy...Demon Haunted World is a tremendous read.
Yes... He was a huge proponent of legalizing marijuana and he was very out in the open about it.

I'm also a little interested in your 'off the deep end' stance, though. What did he do that led you to conclude that he was losing touch with reality? Surely, it wasn't his involvement with studying UFO sightings and beginning the SETI program, because those were things that he was pushing long before before his most famous work.

And, for the record, although he entertained the idea that these people who say they spotted alien UFOs and were abducted may have interesting stories, it was just a part of his skeptical nature. While he needed definite proof of something in order to absolutely believe it as real science, like any real scientist, he also would study the facts before he deduced anything about validity.


"He wrote frequently on what he perceived as the logical and empirical fallacies regarding UFOs and the abduction experience. Sagan rejected an extraterrestrial explanation for the phenomenon but felt there were both empirical and pedagogical benefits for examining UFO reports and that the subject was, therefore, a legitimate topic of study."

-Stuart Appelle


But, he was always clearly interested in the phenomena, as any astronomer should be. Hell... The guy wrote 'Contact,' which is an absolutely amazing book, btw. Those of you that loved the movie would go nuts over the book. While they did a good job of turning such an expansive narrative into a 2-hour movie, they left out much of the meat of the book, which is the best science fiction book I have ever read. He wrote that, literally, in his spare time.

I don't know if you were specifically citing his studies of UFOs and SETI as being 'out there.' If there is something I'm missing, please fill me in.

Believe it or not, I have not completely read The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. I've shuffled through bits and pieces, but never the whole thing, from beginning to end. It may have been a little too much for me to understand when I first gave it a try in my early teens. I need to revisit that one, for sure.

[embersyc]

The end of the book Contact is insane. The movie blew it totally.

Carl Sagan rules. I know some of the theories are outdated now, but Cosmos is still the best science show ever produced.

The way Cosmos blends simple scientific explanation of complex scientific theory, scientific history and elegant explanation of scientific method is masterful.

[RedBlackAttack]

The end of the book Contact is insane. The movie blew it totally.

Completely agree. But, they had to sacrifice something because:

A. They needed to make the movie comfortable two hours long so that moviegoers did not get too anxious and the ADD portion of the country (a rather large percentage, imo) didn't lose interest

and

B. While the book ending is much, much deeper, more detailed and just downright better, the average American (or citizen of the world, for that matter) may have left the theatre with an "I don't get it" attitude. Granted, I have a pretty cynical view of the average American... And for good reason.

But, for what it was (a corporate studio's take on an amazing book), it was not a bad watch. Compared to the book, though... Forget about it.


Carl Sagan rules. I know some of the theories are outdated now, but Cosmos is still the best science show ever produced.

The way Cosmos blends simple scientific explanation of complex scientific theory, scientific history and elegant explanation of scientific method is masterful.

That was part of Sagan's genius. He managed to get the world population excited about some very complex theories that were previously only discussed in labs and scientific think-tanks. Anyone that can make String Theory interesting to the masses deserves to be revered.

[God Shamgod]

B. While the book ending is much, much deeper, more detailed and just downright better, the average American (or citizen of the world, for that matter) may have left the theatre with an "I don't get it" attitude. Granted, I have a pretty cynical view of the average American... And for good reason.

\
I have the same view of average citizens it seems like everything on tv or in movies have to be dumbed down and made simpler so "most" people will get it. That is why a lot of people don't like shows like Lost or The Wire and can't appreciate good documentaries like cosmos and Michio Kaku's shows.

[RedBlackAttack]

I wish Marlo would explain why he believes Sagan went off the deep end. I'm honestly interested, because I have never heard any such thing.

[gigantes]

thanks for starting this thread. thanks for all the positive replies.

sagan was the one who fired my interest in cosmology. since then, hawking is the one who most explored cosmology (notably, black holes) most provocatively, and degrasse-tyson is the one who has explained it all the most coherantly.

(i wish more black americans would realise what a treasure they have in that dude)

another guy, i think it was "ken ustinov", did a fabulous series on cosmology and black holes back on the day on PBS.

[RidonKs]

a friend just sent me this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc)

[RedBlackAttack]

a friend just sent me this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc)
Wow. That was great. Thanks for sharing. Brilliant idea.

[RedBlackAttack]

Hey.... F#ck you, Donks.

I have watched that video at least 20 times in the last 24 hours... I can't stop. It easily surpasses the Slap Chop one as the greatest thing autotune has ever produced.

Catchy as f#ck and deep... Perfect. That guy deserves some type of award. I noticed Carl's son replied in the comments section. :eek:

"The surface of the earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. Recently we've waded a little way out and the water seems inviting."
:bowdown: :bowdown:

It is like crack for a science geek like me.


It is going viral as we speak... So strange that such a thing would become so popular right when I was getting back into Carl. I think I'm going to re-read Contact.

[Jasper]

trolling through the threads I found this one back a month ago.
Carl S. show on PBS was amazing to me , and becaue of the repeats I was able to tape I think the whole series.

His perspective of the big bang , where we stand , and who we are is something we should all look at and put into perspective.

Seldom I ever see a show , yet a series that can even come close to what he narrated and produced.
If my memory serves me correctly , he was talked into doing the show , and he had his finger on the production to ensure it wasn't a feable tale , but a true perspective.

Needless to say - he is sorely missed.

[RedBlackAttack]

trolling through the threads I found this one back a month ago.
Carl S. show on PBS was amazing to me , and becaue of the repeats I was able to tape I think the whole series.

His perspective of the big bang , where we stand , and who we are is something we should all look at and put into perspective.

Seldom I ever see a show , yet a series that can even come close to what he narrated and produced.
If my memory serves me correctly , he was talked into doing the show , and he had his finger on the production to ensure it wasn't a feable tale , but a true perspective.

Needless to say - he is sorely missed.

The question ultimately becomes, 'where there ever be another?'

I'm not so sure... There are a ton of geniuses out there and we have probably reached a point well beyond the things that Sagan was discovering and teaching. His true genius was not in his discoveries, though. His genius was in how easily he was able to communicate his findings and the principles (from intermediate to complex) theories of astronomy.

Scientists tend to be a standoffish breed, in many of my encounters. While they can write a 200-page research paper on the most complex theories, they are at a loss when trying to explain what it really means to a layman.

I just feel like he was a one-of-a-kind genius that we won't see again in our lifetime. Some of his messages resonate and hit a chord that only the greatest philosophers to ever live can challenge.

He had me spellbound as a child. Now, 20 years later, I am equally spellbound and astonished by the vastness of his knowledge and the ease with which he could discuss the complexities of the universe, our place in the cosmic arena and the potential of the human mind.

[catzhernandez]

Carl Sagan is underappreciated?

He gets plenty of respect where I'm from...

[RidonKs]

i'm still killing that song rba.

"if you wish to make and apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe"



His genius was in how easily he was able to communicate his findings and the principles (from intermediate to complex) theories of astronomy.
i've gotten into tyson of late, upon the recommendations of a few ISHiots, and he's an even better communicator than sagan. he doesn't have carl's trademark magical enunciation, but in explaining these complex concepts to us untrained morons - he's got the edge, if only a small one. and whats more, tyson has an incredible gift of exciting his audience with his explanations. its almost as if he can't contain his own excitement, and the audience can't help but feed off of it themselves. really awesome to watch - i can't help but become transfixed when he goes into his lengthy diatribes.

both guys are absolutely incredible though. i've got all of 'cosmos' on my computer (only an episode in so far), but i can't seem to find the episodes of 'science now' anywhere on the net. there are audio versions on the pbs website, but not even a torrent of the episodes.

i'm definitely going to find 'contact' as soon as possible, and hopefully get a chance to jump into it during christmas break.

[RedBlackAttack]

i'm still killing that song rba.

"if you wish to make and apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe"

I can't stop... it has infected my brain (in a good way).

But the brain does much more than just recollect
It inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes
it generates abstractions

The simplest thought like the concept of the number one
Has an elaborate logical underpinning
The brain has it's own language
For testing the structure and consistency of the world

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:


i've gotten into tyson of late, upon the recommendations of a few ISHiots, and he's an even better communicator than sagan. he doesn't have carl's trademark magical enunciation, but in explaining these complex concepts to us untrained morons - he's got the edge, if only a small one. and whats more, tyson has an incredible gift of exciting his audience with his explanations. its almost as if he can't contain his own excitement, and the audience can't help but feed off of it themselves. really awesome to watch - i can't help but become transfixed when he goes into his lengthy diatribes.

Neil Tyson is good. I've listened to some of his stuff and, you are right... He is probably the heir apparent to Carl. He doesn't hit me with the same force, though. Like I said, it was Carl's incredible philosophical viewpoints that are maybe the most awe-inspiring thing to me.

In my relatively minor introduction to his stuff, his messages don't come off with the same power as Sagan's ultimate messages usually did. He is a great communicator, though.

I'll have to delve a little deeper.



i'm definitely going to find 'contact' as soon as possible, and hopefully get a chance to jump into it during christmas break.

I envy you that you have that book to look forward to. I wish I could read it again for the first time. Magical.

[RedBlackAttack]

Carl Sagan is underappreciated?

He gets plenty of respect where I'm from...
Going by the comments section in every video that he has on youtube in which, it seems, no one under the age of 20 has any clue who Sagan is (and many older people don't, either)... Yes, I believe he is underappreciated. His teachings and philosophies should be widely recognized by the masses.

[RedBlackAttack]

Btw, Donks...

Cool video of Tyson discussing the influence of Sagan on his life. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS6H1JAkGY)

[RidonKs]

Btw, Donks...

Cool video of Tyson discussing the influence of Sagan on his life. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS6H1JAkGY)
very neat. imagine how fun it would have been to see those two in their primes, sitting in armchairs and shooting the shit with one another. i would pay a whole hell of a lot of money to see that.


what exactly did sagan do as a scientist/philosopher/astronomer that got him the reputation it did? or was his popularity the product of his series? i know he was deep in the extraterrestrial life field, but i have no idea what he actually accomplished.

[RedBlackAttack]

very neat. imagine how fun it would have been to see those two in their primes, sitting in armchairs and shooting the shit with one another. i would pay a whole hell of a lot of money to see that.


what exactly did sagan do as a scientist/philosopher/astronomer that got him the reputation it did? or was his popularity the product of his series? i know he was deep in the extraterrestrial life field, but i have no idea what he actually accomplished.
He was pretty much the top adviser at NASA for years (starting in the early days of space exploration, well before the moon landing). He was the chief in charge of the program when it made its most astounding breakthroughs in space travel.

He had several complex theories that ultimately turned out to be correct, most notably the temperature on Venus. His scientific findings were mostly involved in atmospheres and environments of other planets and moons.

He also founded SETI.

But, of course, he because world-renowned for his Cosmos series and his ability to mesmerize an audience.

[RidonKs]

just finished the second episode of cosmos blazed off my tree. holy fooking gawd.

i must say the entire concept of a cosmic calendar to put things into perspective is absolutely brilliant. i wonder if he was the first to use it.

YES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M)

[Jasper]

The question ultimately becomes, 'where there ever be another?'

I'm not so sure... There are a ton of geniuses out there and we have probably reached a point well beyond the things that Sagan was discovering and teaching. His true genius was not in his discoveries, though. His genius was in how easily he was able to communicate his findings and the principles (from intermediate to complex) theories of astronomy.

Scientists tend to be a standoffish breed, in many of my encounters. While they can write a 200-page research paper on the most complex theories, they are at a loss when trying to explain what it really means to a layman.

I just feel like he was a one-of-a-kind genius that we won't see again in our lifetime. Some of his messages resonate and hit a chord that only the greatest philosophers to ever live can challenge.

He had me spellbound as a child. Now, 20 years later, I am equally spellbound and astonished by the vastness of his knowledge and the ease with which he could discuss the complexities of the universe, our place in the cosmic arena and the potential of the human mind.

I think some of our current scientists are not fully duvulging (spl.) some of their insightfullness for a couple of reasons I have been pondering about ever since the Bush administration.

I keep tab's on NASA periodically , but the assumption about why they are trying to determine the history of Mars and whats their take on exploration is not letting the public fully in on their directives.
IMO I think the Hubble has shown them that something serious is coming our way and I am not talking about the Telabon - nut cases.
I am thinking that there just might be a meteror or something that is bearing down on us , maybe in 100 years or so.
To assume they could migrate to Mars and keep our human race active is one thing , but for future generations they would seriously need to locate a planet that would be similar to our own.
When Bush stated that he wanted to use the moon as a jumping platform for scientific studies to Mars , now they are checking to see if the MOON actually has ice (H2O) there :confusedshrug:

Say for instance the planet got nuc'ed , the idea that the United Nations would not get 100% involved seems to tell me that scientists around the world were possibly hushed , about something that is coming our way.

Our world society , besides technology is in its baby steps , so if by chance they are truely aware of something cosmic , we are not being told.

[RidonKs]

I think some of our current scientists are not fully duvulging (spl.) some of their insightfullness for a couple of reasons I have been pondering about ever since the Bush administration.

I keep tab's on NASA periodically , but the assumption about why they are trying to determine the history of Mars and whats their take on exploration is not letting the public fully in on their directives.
IMO I think the Hubble has shown them that something serious is coming our way and I am not talking about the Telabon - nut cases.
I am thinking that there just might be a meteror or something that is bearing down on us , maybe in 100 years or so.
To assume they could migrate to Mars and keep our human race active is one thing , but for future generations they would seriously need to locate a planet that would be similar to our own.
When Bush stated that he wanted to use the moon as a jumping platform for scientific studies to Mars , now they are checking to see if the MOON actually has ice (H2O) there :confusedshrug:

Say for instance the planet got nuc'ed , the idea that the United Nations would not get 100% involved seems to tell me that scientists around the world were possibly hushed , about something that is coming our way.

Our world society , besides technology is in its baby steps , so if by chance they are truely aware of something cosmic , we are not being told.
:roll:

there is an asteroid coming towards earth, around 300 meters wide. and according to predictions, it isn't going to pass by in a hundred years or so, it's going to pass by in twenty-seven years or so. 2036. now there remains just a fraction of a chance that it collides with the planet - according to wiki, when it was discovered in 2004 there was around a 2.7 percent chance of collision, and that number has since decreased dramatically to about 1 in 250,000. still, it's the largest observable object that has ever passed this close to earth. if there still remains a chance that the asteroid may hit our planet (however minuscule that chance may be and continue becoming), why would the scientists let that bit of info slip?

you use commas weird.

[No.45]

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

- Carl Sagan

[RidonKs]

[QUOTE=No.45]"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there

[gigantes]

very neat. imagine how fun it would have been to see those two in their primes, sitting in armchairs and shooting the shit with one another. i would pay a whole hell of a lot of money to see that.
i don't think we need to. they both would have replicated huge swaths of information, just via different styles.

the fact that one remembers the other and sublimates him in his message and in his research is the way these formulas are supposed to work, have always worked, and do in fact work.

[RidonKs]

i don't think we need to. they both would have replicated huge swaths of information, just via different styles.

the fact that one remembers the other and sublimates him in his message and in his research is the way these formulas are supposed to work, have always worked, and do in fact work.
clearly. but as a fan of these two particular gentleman, i'd be thrilled to see them sit down in all of their brilliance and have a conversation about the cosmos. maybe more so even than einstein and newton - because 9/10s of what they said would go over my head. tyson and sagan can speak in laymen, and would therefore be fascinating to watch. it's similar to any basketball fan who would be thrilled to watch jordan and lebron match up one on one. it would be an absolute blast.

[gigantes]

it really wouldn't, and that's my whole point.

jordan vs. lebron would be close to a standstill. each would bring some unique skills to the table and each would negate some of the others' strength. it's only a fantasy matchup the way that kids think that fighting bugs (http://www.japanesebugfights.com/) are an interesting fantasy matchup.

the real genius and interest level is in their impact across a team.

remove yourself from the video / technology age and you have to deal with the fact that only one guru is generally available at a time. it's the universality of their message that is the whole point, and always has been.

[RidonKs]

you're absolutely chalkful of insanity. so because lebron and mike excel at providing opportunities for their teammates, watching them battle each other in a 1v1 match of the ages wouldn't be exciting? the very fact that it is a standstill makes it such an intense event to behold. two of the most explosive athletes - from any sport - going against each other with no mitigating factors. find me a fan of basketball who wouldn't LOVE to see that.


it really wouldn't, and that's my whole point.
it would be - i'm astounded that you can't grasp my point. these are two of the most communicative scientists since the dawn of the scientific era. their ability to use speech in translating complex theories of physics and biology and chemistry - to give a layman like myself (and from what i understand, you as well) a better chance at grasping significance - is not something you can discard.

i don't want to hear them have a conversation about the cosmos because they're the two most intelligent men to have ever walked the planet. but as academic heroes of mine, and as transmitters of knowledge to the general public, it would be an awesome experience to hear these two - both of the same breed and equally capable in expressing themselves - to go over the advancements of astrophysics over the past 40 years. forget that they come from different eras. i'm taking them for what they are - communicators of science to the general public - which includes me - and wishing that i could hear them talk to one another.

i don't know how i can explain it any simpler than that.


remove yourself from the video / technology age and you have to deal with the fact that only one guru is generally available at a time. it's the universality of their message that is the whole point, and always has been.

i have no idea where this came from, but i wouldn't mind hearing you elaborate.

[Ben Jordan]

wow! thanks for the hulu link. tonight is a great night to blaze and watch something like this.

:cheers:

[gigantes]

you're absolutely chalkful of insanity. so because lebron and mike excel...
heh... i like your "chalkful" comment. a style or two insult point there.

your basic fixation is that two interesting geniuses across history are so much better having lived in the same time and having played off of each other for the public's benefit. this has been true already in many cases already (newton vs. leibniz, davinci vs. michelangelo, even roman gladiator v/s gladiator) and can be imagined in many other cases. all i am really saying is that since we rarely get to see the direct matchup, we are left to surmise upon the clues both emit and might as well be realistic about the situation. and we are left to ponder what their individual might is versus their teaching ability. that is the whole key.

and i don't disagree with anything you've said, i just try to look at the whole situation more pragmatically.


i have no idea where this came from, but i wouldn't mind hearing you elaborate.
think about it, ridonks, and imagine how human history went. imagine how the history of teaching and betterment went and why we long-ago arrived at the jungian archetype of the teacher needing to die before the pupil can really progress. you'll find that dynamic across all cultures, all religions, all civilisations. it's the same reason why comparing players across the decades or centuries is fruitless and is left to only our childish natures.

[RidonKs]

i know what you're saying now.

ready for my rebuttal? wishing that a dead guy and an alive guy could have a cool conversation about nerdy stuff like physics isn't pragmatic. its idealistic fantasy. so looking at it on pragmatic terms? yeah, that's not going to work well. i'm aware.

my off-hand comment, which i have a feeling you read just a wee bit too far into, was that it would be fun - FUN - to conceive of a hypothetical scenario consisting of one dead guy and one living guy discussing their passions with one another in their easily accessible fashion for which they have both become so renowned. thats it. nothing else. i don't want to undo history, and i don't want to pit these two against one another to see who is really the 'better' scientist. just want to hear the conversation.

lol


think about it, ridonks, and imagine how human history went. imagine how the history of teaching and betterment went and why we long-ago arrived at the jungian archetype of the teacher needing to die before the pupil can really progress. you'll find that dynamic across all cultures, all religions, all civilisations. it's the same reason why comparing players across the decades or centuries is fruitless and is left to only our childish natures.

this makes sense. but it doesn't necessarily follow this:

remove yourself from the video / technology age and you have to deal with the fact that only one guru is generally available at a time.
which is just way too bold.

we're on the same general page though.

[gigantes]

you're a good man, understand much, and i'm someone who generally only drops by this section when i'm half-drunk, bored, and not in the mood to fully elaborate the vagaries of my ramblings, however accurate or inaccurate they may be.

if we happen to tango again across the dimension of ISH then i, for one, would not complain.

[RedBlackAttack]

Nice convo, fellas. Glad to see this thread is still alive and kicking. Good sh#t from both of you. :cheers:

I sent my mom the video of Sagan's 'A Glorious Dawn' mashup and she let me know that she has the entire seven DVD set of Cosmos. I went and picked them up today... I'm about to dive into Disc 1. It has been a long time (and it isn't the same watching it streaming online when compared to watching it on a 50" plasma as much as I appreciate Hulu's efforts).

Btw, have you guys looked into the Kepler Telescope, which will scan the horizon looking at suns and planets outside of our own solar system in search of Earth-like habitats? Crazy sh#t. I can't help but to think that Carl would be all over this.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/090409-kepler-dust-cover.html

[RidonKs]

:cheers: gigantes. pretty sure i've screamed at you once or twice for your condescending nature, but i'd rather deal with that than an uninformed idiot. ;)



i just finished the third episode of cosmos. i sort of wish carl hadn't dedicated a full quarter of the episode to explaining why newspaper horoscopes are phony bologna, but whatever. at least he maintained his eloquent manner. lol

i hadn't, but i just checked it out. let me see if i've got this right - they use a photometer to measure the luminosity of some 100,000 stars around the universe, at intervals of 30 minutes. as planets orbit the stars, the apparent brightness from our angle will get slightly dimmer, and that in turn will allow us to determine the size of the planet - based on the size and composition of the star. does the star appear less luminous because the planet of interest has come between us and the star, or is it some strange shadow effect that i can't wrap my head around right now?



this is a little older, but i just saw it yesterday - awesome step by step to imagining dimensions beyond ours:

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA&feature=related)

he's got some other cool videos too. in one he compares our inability to properly envision the higher dimensions with plato's allegory of the cave.

[RidonKs]

i don't think it has been said yet - the music in cosmos is top notch. beautiful stuff to go with the jawdropping images.

[RidonKs]

another one for you rba (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk)

its no glorious dawn, but still pretty falking epic.

[RidonKs]

"the cosmos is also within us - we're made of star stuff. we are a way the cosmos can know itself"

one of the most beautiful quotes i've ever heard. incredible.

[RedBlackAttack]

i don't think it has been said yet - the music in cosmos is top notch. beautiful stuff to go with the jawdropping images.
Yeah... I was actually thinking about this the other night when I was watching Disc 1. That main piano piece that they use throughout really suits it well.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSZ55X3X4pk) is a link to all of the music from Cosmos. The piece I'm talking about starts around 6:30.


another one for you rba (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk)

its no glorious dawn, but still pretty falking epic.

Good sh#t. Nice to see deGrasse making his melodysheep debut. No one's voice works with the autotune like Sagan, though. I think his propensity to really enunciate every syllable helps. It also doesn't hurt that he has some of the most beautiful, riveting quotations in human history. They seem literally made for being a hook in a song.

MelodySheep deserves serious recognition for these two efforts. :bowdown:


"the cosmos is also within us - we're made of star stuff. we are a way the cosmos can know itself"

one of the most beautiful quotes i've ever heard. incredible.

We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact. The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths; of exquisite interrelationships; of the awesome machinery of nature.

...I love that imagery of the 'awesome machinery of nature.' Such a perfect phrase...

[RidonKs]

Yeah... I was actually thinking about this the other night when I was watching Disc 1. That main piano piece that they use throughout really suits it well.
that main theme is definitely gorgeous. i was actually checking out some other vangelis shit the other night - i liked most of what i heard. some of it was a little avant garde for my taste, but i might phone a few record stores around town and see if they have anything by him. he had to be one of the very first true electronica artists producing music back then.

there are two segments in the second episode of cosmos that i've probably watched a good half dozen times each - they use the same riveting score, probably the most epic piece i've heard so far in the series. i know you have the dvds, in the first segment carl describes the origins of life beginning with the forming of DNA and the nucleotides, and in the second segment he describes his hypothesis of the sinkers/floaters life on jupiter.

actually hang on, i'll see if i can find it on youtube.

here we go - first part on origins of life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAZW1Ayh68&feature=related)
second part starting around 1:45 on jupiter's potential for life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3rfS2MBqUg&feature=related)

:bowdown: that build-up. i could watch those dozens of times in a row.

[RedBlackAttack]

that main theme is definitely gorgeous. i was actually checking out some other vangelis shit the other night - i liked most of what i heard. some of it was a little avant garde for my taste, but i might phone a few record stores around town and see if they have anything by him. he had to be one of the very first true electronica artists producing music back then.

there are two segments in the second episode of cosmos that i've probably watched a good half dozen times each - they use the same riveting score, probably the most epic piece i've heard so far in the series. i know you have the dvds, in the first segment carl describes the origins of life beginning with the forming of DNA and the nucleotides, and in the second segment he describes his hypothesis of the sinkers/floaters life on jupiter.

actually hang on, i'll see if i can find it on youtube.

here we go - first part on origins of life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAZW1Ayh68&feature=related)
second part starting around 1:45 on jupiter's potential for life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3rfS2MBqUg&feature=related)

:bowdown: that build-up. i could watch those dozens of times in a row.

Definitely great stuff. I love the theory of floaters, sinkers and hunters. It might be somewhat wild speculation, but it sort of makes sense when you think about it. There are all of these life-building molecules floating around in all directions of space. Chemical reactions that could spawn such beings seem inevitable... Maybe even common.

That animation at the end of the Episode 2, Part 3 is also killer. One thing that amazes me about this series is that, even though it was created 30 years ago, the computer graphics and special effects used still look good. That is a credit to the creators of the show, who had the foresight not to overdo it with tons of graphics that would certainly look way out-of-date today. They used the minimum and the result is something that stands the test of time.

I'm going to check out some Vangelis stuff. He did the Chariots of Fire soundtrack, right?

Did you give the Benn Jordan's tribue album to Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, a listen yet? I linked it in the OP of this thread. It is really excellent and I think you would dig it. I've put it on while reading Carl and it helps bring the words to life. Good sh#t.

Pale Blue Dot Teaser (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjqBq8J1n-E&feature=related)

Leaving Earth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENN285XSw)

Ascent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AN2K3GZ1Wk&feature=related)

Floating Vacuum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5UZz0nxALU&feature=related)

Safe Landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXpCuE5vjMY&feature=related)

[RidonKs]

i have a feeling it'll be right up my alley. i just peeped 'leaving earth' and 'ascent' as testers, and got the immediate feeling that the entire album would flow together, with a total downplay for song transitions. i'ma check it out soon. it'd be great if a talented poet took time to record some sagan-esque lyrics over top of the sounds, assuming the entire album is purely instrumental.

he did 'chariots of fire' and 'blade runner' - neither of which i've seen - along with a few other soundtracks here and there. apparently all of 'earth' (the third movement from that album is where the cosmos theme is taken from) is supposed to be pretty incredible.

ha, i watched that animated 40 second clip for the first time stoned off my ass, and was in awe. truly incredible. i didn't realize that the conclusive understanding of what really killed the dinosaurs had been discovered so recently, until sagan admitted that the scientific community was unaware how the mass extinction had actually occurred. then he comes on at the end of the dvd and explains (10 years after the filming i believe) what really happened. although i suppose its still not 100% conclusive that it was a meteor - theres basically a consensus on the matter.

i still ****ing love that cosmic calendar. what a perspective. all of written human history can be date stamped to the last few seconds of december 31st. :eek:

[Fatal9]

Haven't been into Sagan much, though I do have a copy of "Cosmos" that I bought a couple of years ago. This thread reminds me to read it soon, probably next month when I have some free time. Is that right book to start reading Sagan? I'll review it if this thread is still around.

[RedBlackAttack]

i have a feeling it'll be right up my alley. i just peeped 'leaving earth' and 'ascent' as testers, and got the immediate feeling that the entire album would flow together, with a total downplay for song transitions. i'ma check it out soon. it'd be great if a talented poet took time to record some sagan-esque lyrics over top of the sounds, assuming the entire album is purely instrumental.
Yes... The whole album is instrumental. All of Jordan's stuff (he also goes by 'Flashbulb') is instrumental. He is a virtuoso guitarist that creates all of these things single-handidly.

On the album, it actually goes from Ascent into Leaving Earth. If you play them back-to-back on Youtube, you can hear how it flows together. Absolutely brilliant atmospheric music.


he did 'chariots of fire' and 'blade runner' - neither of which i've seen - along with a few other soundtracks here and there. apparently all of 'earth' (the third movement from that album is where the cosmos theme is taken from) is supposed to be pretty incredible.

Yeah... That Chariots of Fire soundtrack is one of the most famous in film history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYJzcUvS_NU

It might be a bit overused, but when it first came out, that was one of the most epic songs in the history of Hollywood. I'd say the producers of Cosmos made a good decision with Vangelis.


ha, i watched that animated 40 second clip for the first time stoned off my ass, and was in awe. truly incredible. i didn't realize that the conclusive understanding of what really killed the dinosaurs had been discovered so recently, until sagan admitted that the scientific community was unaware how the mass extinction had actually occurred. then he comes on at the end of the dvd and explains (10 years after the filming i believe) what really happened. although i suppose its still not 100% conclusive that it was a meteor - theres basically a consensus on the matter.

As Carl said...

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.

But, yeah... A meteor seems the most logical answer and there is a fair amount of evidence to back it up. I'm not sure if we will ever know for absolute certain what happened, but we are pretty close, atm.

I thought the same thing about the updated information on the dinosaurs in Cosmos. It boggled my mind that the meteor hypothesis hadn't been the scientific consensus in the early-80s. I guess since we are young enough that dinosaurs have always been known to us as having been taken out by the meteor, it comes as second nature.


i still ****ing love that cosmic calendar. what a perspective. all of written human history can be date stamped to the last few seconds of december 31st. :eek:

The ideas that the cosmic calendar presents are a total mind-f#ck. It makes the human advancement in so many areas that much more staggering. Our presence has encompassed such a tiny fraction of the history of this planet, yet look around... And then imagine how far we will have advanced when we are a few days in on the cosmic calendar.

That is, if we can avoid destroying ourselves and the planet in the process...


Haven't been into Sagan much, though I do have a copy of "Cosmos" that I bought a couple of years ago. This thread reminds me to read it soon, probably next month when I have some free time. Is that right book to start reading Sagan? I'll review it if this thread is still around.

Reading your thoughts on Newton, Galileo, Aristotle, etc. on the other thread, I'm surprised to hear that you have not been introduced to Sagan yet. I guess that goes back to my initial point of him being undervalued in the grand scheme. He may not have had the discoveries of the other 'big names' in the history of the field, but he was just as valuable, imo.

Where to start?

Well... There is really no wrong place to start with Sagan. Cosmos is the place that most people like to begin, I guess. It is a tremendous read, though a few of the ideas presented aren't entirely up-to-date (the dinosaurs' extinction is a good example). But, Sagan had a way with words that makes it well worth your time.

I would also highly recommend Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. It is filled with great stuff.... There is a lot of philosophical points made in there, too. That is one of the greatest areas for Sagan, to me. He was absolutely a true, modern day philosopher.

If you have any interest in science fiction, Contact is an absolute must read. It is the single greatest sci-fi novel that I have ever had the pleasure of reading. In fact, I'm thinking of re-opening it when I have some time and plowing through it on a slow weekend.

You probably have seen the movie... While it did a good job by Hollywood standards of presenting the cliff notes of the book, they totally botched the ending. Even if you aren't into sci-fi, you should give the book a try. It's foundation is in true scientific theory of what may happen in the future... Not simply wild stories that will likely never happen.

Other excellent reads...

Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

I need to give Demon-Haunted World another look. It was a little over my head when I initially read it as a youngster. You can really start with any of these. It all depends on what you feel like reading about. They all offer something different.

[Take Your Lumps]

Chariots of Fire and Cosmos were epic but let's not forget Blade Runner :pimp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izoNWi3TJd8

[RidonKs]

want to see something truly mind-blowing?

i can barely believe this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lFQOmb6mVs)

can't. fit. in. the. known. universe.

the numbers are on wiki, to back up the statement too. and even upon seeing the numbers (which, to me and my fairly unrefined mathematical background, mean little) - i remain in disbelief. such a number hurts my brain.

here's another one: if you began at the estimated big bang event - some 14 billion years ago - and tried to write googolplex at approximately 2 zeroes per second... you wouldn't have finished yet up until right now.

that's a fact. there are twice as many zeroes in the number googolplex than there have been seconds since the beginning of space and time.

:eek:

[RidonKs]

bumpage for the third 'symphony of science' music video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioZf4TjoUI)

[RidonKs]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sagan-man.png

[Take Your Lumps]

want to see something truly mind-blowing?

i can barely believe this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lFQOmb6mVs)

can't. fit. in. the. known. universe.

the numbers are on wiki, to back up the statement too. and even upon seeing the numbers (which, to me and my fairly unrefined mathematical background, mean little) - i remain in disbelief. such a number hurts my brain.

here's another one: if you began at the estimated big bang event - some 14 billion years ago - and tried to write googolplex at approximately 2 zeroes per second... you wouldn't have finished yet up until right now.

that's a fact. there are twice as many zeroes in the number googolplex than there have been seconds since the beginning of space and time.

:eek:

That is ****ing crazy.

From wiki:

[QUOTE]Thinking of this another way, consider printing the digits of a googolplex in unreadable, one-point font. TeX one-point font is 0.35145989 mm per digit,[3] so it would take about 3.5

[Take Your Lumps]

bump

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU
Niel deGrasse Tyson - The Effect of Islam on Science in the Middle East - 9th-12th Century

[RedBlackAttack]

bump

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU
Niel deGrasse Tyson - The Effect of Islam on Science in the Middle East - 9th-12th Century
I've seen this... Good stuff. It is especially interesting in light of current religious fundamentalists in America flexing their collective muscle and trying to stunt the growth of science.

The Middle East was the epicenter of scientific discovery for hundreds of years before the fundamentalists took over. It should be a lesson to everyone, whether you are christian or agnostic.

Tyson certainly has a way with words. He is the closest thing to Sagan that we have today.

[Heilige]

Tyson certainly has a way with words. He is the closest thing to Sagan that we have today.


What about Michio Kaku??

[RidonKs]

bump

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU
Niel deGrasse Tyson - The Effect of Islam on Science in the Middle East - 9th-12th Century
wildly fascinating, but still probably the low point of that particular speech. i've watched the 15 minute 'god of the gaps' lecture right before that part more times than i care to remember, and then after the arabic bit he dives into his 'stupid design', which i quite enjoy.


we have an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system!
:oldlol:

still gotta love neil. so much excitement. f*ckin al-ghazali. lol

[RedBlackAttack]

What about Michio Kaku??
Kaku is obviously a brilliant man, but the only times that I have seen him speak, it involves extra terrestrials, which isn't the area of astronomy which interests me most. I'm sure he has other content out there that I just haven't seen, so I will just say that I am more schooled on Tyson than I am Kaku.

Feel free to present your favorite Kaku links. I'd be interested in watching.

[RidonKs]

kaku has a whole pile of sh*t on string theory all over youtube that i've been meaning to watch. i'm not sure he's got the presence of tyson or sagan (each in their unique way, of course), but he certainly has the intellect.

[Take Your Lumps]

What about Michio Kaku??

While I love Michio, most of the stuff I see him talking about fall into hypotheticals (he is a theoretical physicist after all lol)

I personally respond more strongly to biologists, cosmologists, astronomers, etc.

That being said though, I love his new Sci-Fi Science series on the Science Channel. Great stuff.

EDIT: ^^oooh...string theory does give me a hard on though. i'll have to check those out.

[RidonKs]

btw, i'm posting this here instead of making a new thread - i can't stop watching it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hUNBhRiKCI)

[RidonKs]

EDIT: ^^oooh...string theory does give me a hard on though. i'll have to check those out.
i know very very little about it. have you heard tyson's, err, criticisms?

[RedBlackAttack]

wildly fascinating, but still probably the low point of that particular speech. i've watched the 15 minute 'god of the gaps' lecture right before that part more times than i care to remember, and then after the arabic bit he dives into his 'stupid design', which i quite enjoy.

:oldlol:

still gotta love neil. so much excitement. f*ckin al-ghazali. lol
Yep... God of the Gaps is incredibly interesting... Isaac Newton invoking intelligent design? Who would have thought possibly the greatest scientific genius to ever live would do such a thing?

It is an interesting commentary on the human mind reaching its capacity... Even the greatest human minds.

[Heilige]

Kaku is obviously a brilliant man, but the only times that I have seen him speak, it involves extra terrestrials, which isn't the area of astronomy which interests me most. I'm sure he has other content out there that I just haven't seen, so I will just say that I am more schooled on Tyson than I am Kaku.

Feel free to present your favorite Kaku links. I'd be interested in watching.


No problem. This is probably my favorite. This lecture is 4 parts. Enjoy! :cheers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5UcJt6RoIs&feature=player_embedded#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m22wDMZzcuc&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Llt4GhGnRk&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to9Ht2NRQ3o&feature=channel

[RidonKs]

Yep... God of the Gaps is incredibly interesting... Isaac Newton invoking intelligent design? Who would have thought possibly the greatest scientific genius to ever live would do such a thing?

It is an interesting commentary on the human mind reaching its capacity... Even the greatest human minds.
i like it because it phrases an argument that everybody already knows in a more... persuasive and documented fashion. i mean, we've all employed the "well everybody used to believe that the world was flat" and the "why is religion slowly declining in popularity" arguments. the fact that everybody, even the great scientists, used to believe vehemently in a high power isn't really a secret. but to actually hear the quotes, and then to hear tyson phrase it the way he does - very eye opening.

although when he makes his major point by screaming "why isn't this number zero", you can kind of spin it two ways. i didn't fully understand his point until i had watched the lecture twice.

should brilliant scientists accept a personal god, because that's what every famous scientist has done in history? or should they reject a personal god, because of the full knowledge that the personal god accepted by every famous scientist throughout history has chronologically been used to explain less and less as man has understood more and more?

clearly his point is the latter, but the quote is:


85% of the scientists reject a personal god. but they missed the story - the real story is, why isn't this number 0%?
i have a feeling he just misspoke here, and meant "why isnt the number of scientists who accept a personal god 0%".




that brings up a really interesting point that i only recently stumbled upon though. guys like hawking and sagan and even einstein all believed in a 'god', but that god was nothing more than the cumulation of physical laws which explained the universe. since the term 'god' is used to explain the universe, and we're steadily understanding more and more about the universe, then eventually when we DO fully understand it (hawking thinks within the next 50 years or so) - we can just call THAT understand 'god'.

hawking also brought up an interesting point. if there is a quantum theory of gravity which can essentially 'explain' the cosmos, or at least the mechanisms which drive action in the cosmos, what if a major aspect of that theory is that it leads humanity (or just general intelligent life) AWAY from the truth? then you've got a paradox in which our search for a full descriptive theory is a PART of that very full descriptive theory! and then you shoot yourself in the head.

[RidonKs]

No problem. This is probably my favorite. This lecture is 4 parts. Enjoy!

thanks for the links. definitely going to check these out over winter break.

[barne100]

I just read Demon-Haunted World and that NEEDS to be required high school reading. I have run into too many fellow students that are graduating college as I am that have simply never learned what they should have and havent dropped the silly things they never should have taken as truth in the first place.

[RedBlackAttack]

i like it because it phrases an argument that everybody already knows in a more... persuasive and documented fashion. i mean, we've all employed the "well everybody used to believe that the world was flat" and the "why is religion slowly declining in popularity" arguments. the fact that everybody, even the great scientists, used to believe vehemently in a high power isn't really a secret. but to actually hear the quotes, and then to hear tyson phrase it the way he does - very eye opening.

although when he makes his major point by screaming "why isn't this number zero", you can kind of spin it two ways. i didn't fully understand his point until i had watched the lecture twice.

I took it as, it is proven throughout human history that the greatest scientific minds will invoke 'god' when they reach the absolute limit of their knowledge. That is, unless you develop a new kind of math or a new way of thinking, you aren't going to go any further. Thus, the fact that the number is not zero indicates that there are scientists out there who have come to that point... Maybe the modern world's greatest scientists, if history is a judge?

If you have exhausted every theory and it still doesn't explain the point you have reached, 'god' becomes the only logical answer... Until, generations later, when the unexplained occurrences that were attributed to 'god' become explainable.

That is where I thought he might be going, although I was also a bit unsure... Would the belief in 'god' for our modern scientists exhibit the fact that we have, in fact, reached our limit?


that brings up a really interesting point that i only recently stumbled upon though. guys like hawking and sagan and even einstein all believed in a 'god', but that god was nothing more than the cumulation of physical laws which explained the universe. since the term 'god' is used to explain the universe, and we're steadily understanding more and more about the universe, then eventually when we DO fully understand it (hawking thinks within the next 50 years or so) - we can just call THAT understand 'god'.

hawking also brought up an interesting point. if there is a quantum theory of gravity which can essentially 'explain' the cosmos, or at least the mechanisms which drive action in the cosmos, what if a major aspect of that theory is that it leads humanity (or just general intelligent life) AWAY from the truth? then you've got a paradox in which our search for a full descriptive theory is a PART of that very full descriptive theory! and then you shoot yourself in the head.

It isn't as if there are no examples of this happening throughout human history. There are theories that were believed and generally accepted as fact (the sun revolves around the earth) for hundreds of years. They were based on what was understood at the time as full-proof scientific theories developed by the world's greatest minds.

Yet, totally false and leading us in the opposite direction of the real answer to how our solar system works and our place in it. Now, we look back on those poor souls as unevolved hacks... Will our ancestors 500 years from now look back upon Hawking the same way? A great scientist that was simply incapable of understanding the true nature of humanity and our place in the galaxy?

Time will tell and we won't be around to see it, but it is certainly interesting to think about.

[RidonKs]

have simply never learned what they should have and havent dropped the silly things they never should have taken as truth in the first place.
that came off like you had specific examples. care to share, or were you in fact just speaking generally?

[RidonKs]

oh f*ck, i forgot to mention - last night i had a few puffs and finally downloaded 'pale blue dot'. well worth it and fantastic recommendation rba. i didn't get through the whole thing (listened to the first half once, started it again while lying in bed, and fell asleep halfway through), but i can't imagine the second half being a letdown compared to the first half. some of those tracks really do conjure images of space when you close your eyes though. quite an achievement.

btw (http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html)

[RedBlackAttack]

oh f*ck, i forgot to mention - last night i had a few puffs and finally downloaded 'pale blue dot'. well worth it and fantastic recommendation rba. i didn't get through the whole thing (listened to the first half once, started it again while lying in bed, and fell asleep halfway through), but i can't imagine the second half being a letdown compared to the first half. some of those tracks really do conjure images of space when you close your eyes though. quite an achievement.

btw (http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html)
Glad to hear that you got around to it. The second half is much more dissonant, but as you would have guessed, it is all an effort to achieve a great climax with the last three tracks.

I know that Sagan was big into the marijuana cause and legalization. I wonder if he had the old 60s dirt weed or some government strength, cutting edge buds?

Let's face it... The older generations have a hard time with the potency of our weed. I've smoked up some older cats on many an occasion and it usually results in stonage to a degree for which they hadn't bargained (not always, but usually).

So... My heart says Carl had High Times quality herb with some nice glass pieces... My head says probably dirt with an old metal pipe that gives you a headache. :confusedshrug:

[barne100]

that came off like you had specific examples. care to share, or were you in fact just speaking generally?

Well the book is essentially a knock on the pseudosciences of the world. These can be crop circles, big foot or whatever and my statement was meant generally, if not a slight jab at organized religion.. he teaches you how to understand real science and use it yourself to battle the "imitation science" that unfortunately runs wild in political and religious circles.. which people tend to believe.

[Take Your Lumps]

On a lighter note...

Terry Pratchett on religion: 'I'd rather be a rising ape than a fallen angel'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/video/2009/dec/19/terry-pratchett-religion

[Take Your Lumps]

bump

Does Neil Tyson think we are alone in the universe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re66MWWl8q8

[bladefd]

bump

Does Neil Tyson think we are alone in the universe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re66MWWl8q8

Very interesting. Here is the whole video (worth watching the whole thing):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAD25s53wmE

edit:
This one is hilarious towards the end but makes plenty of sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc&feature=related

[bladefd]

bump

Here is Carl Sagan's entire Cosmos series if anybody is interested:
http://www.hulu.com/cosmos

Here is his last interview about 6-7 months before he passed away in 1996. I just finished watching it, and really enjoyed it.
Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBkaP7EY5Us
part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPRknQKWiUY

Man, he is an absolute genius. I wish we had more guys like him. Carl Sagan will be missed and never forgotten. :cheers:

[RidonKs]

Here is his last interview about 6-7 months before he passed away in 1996.
actually he spoke to ted koppel a few weeks before his death, and said he was feeling much better than he had in years. which makes me incredibly depressed. i think the video is somewhere on youtube.

*sigh*

i miss carl sagan and i wasn't even aware he had existed until 4 months ago.

[Jailblazers7]

I always forget about this thread but when its bumped I'm always amazed how incredible it is. I'm gonna have to subscribe to this one and save it for later.

[RedBlackAttack]

There are two more 'symphony of science' mixes up (new to me, anyway).

Have a look...

http://www.symphonyofscience.com/

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4316/1264995199769.jpg

[RedBlackAttack]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is on the Daily Show tonight at 1:30 a.m. EST (Comedy Central). I wish Ridonks was still around. :(

[Take Your Lumps]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is on the Daily Show tonight at 1:30 a.m. EST (Comedy Central). I wish Ridonks was still around. :(

Saw it on my DVR...gotta check it out in the AM..

[Mista Kool]

i've watched the 15 minute 'god of the gaps' lecture right before that part more times than i care to remember, and then after the arabic bit he dives into his 'stupid design', which i quite enjoy.
deGrasse Tyson's logic says that non-natural conclusions are arrived at entirely due to a lack of any known sufficient natural causes. According to this nonsensical viewpoint, those who concluded that Stone Henge was the work of intelligence would be arguing from gaps (ignorance). His mistake, and it's a mistake most Intelligent Design-denialists make, is his ignoring that non-natural causes (artificiality; design) can be very reasonably detected based, not on ignorance, but on knowledge. This knowledge is our understanding of intentional causation and the resulting pattern it creates. This pattern is complexity coupled with specification (referring to arrangement).

It's a completely uncontroversial scientific methodology.... until its implications are considered unfavorable, in which case it goes from uncontroversial to the purported most wild and crazy idea ever conceived (I.D.).

I.D.-denialist Carl Sagan uses I.D. methodology in his two most famous endeavors: S.E.T.I. and Pale, Blue Dot.

The former, S.E.T.I., searches throughout the (searchable) cosmos looking for anything deemed an unnatural arrangement of signals (usually pulsars) which would almost certainly signify intelligence. In other words, S.E.T.I. is attempting to detect design via finding an appreciable degree of complex, specified information) throughout the stoic cosmos.

In the latter, Sagan looks at the size and location of the Earth relative to the size of the universe and deems that we occupy no special (read: specific) place in the cosmos -- in other words, he's detected a lack of design in the Earth's positioning via the absence of specification in its location amongst the universe.

What Sagan (and deGrasse) try to write off as pseudoscience (I.D.) actually follows perfectly logical, well-accepted scientific standards. The real reason they dismiss I.D. isn't because it's anti-scientific, but because they don't like its implications. The thought of the universe and/or life being designed by a Creator frightens them deeply, as it does with most atheists (or God-denialists, as I call them).

What they're doing is no different than what the fundamentalist Christian does when he rejects the age of the Earth. Rejecting science based on personal preference rather than the data. Sagan and deGrasse attempt to hide this behind strawman attacks, but those who are knowledgeable and posses critical thinking skills (such as myself) can see right through it, whereas those who lack knowledge and critical thinking (such as RidonKs and Take Your Lumps) cannot.

I've put both Carl Sagan and Neill deGrasse Tyson in their places and exposed their double-standards and hidden agendas. Kudos to me.


For those interested, the I.D.E.A. Center further swats the "God-of-the-gap" myth (lie for Darwin?) out of the ballpark...

FAQ: Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument? (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159)

[quote]http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3452/shortanswer.png

The Long Answer:

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." Meyer also emphasizes many of the positive predictions of intelligent design:

"[I]Experience teaches that information-rich systems

[RedBlackAttack]

deGrasse Tyson's logic says that non-natural conclusions are arrived at entirely due to a lack of any known sufficient natural causes. According to this nonsensical viewpoint, those who concluded that Stone Henge was the work of intelligence would be arguing from gaps (ignorance). His mistake, and it's a mistake most Intelligent Design-denialists make, is his ignoring that non-natural causes (artificiality; design) can be very reasonably detected based, not on ignorance, but on knowledge. This knowledge is our understanding of intentional causation and the resulting pattern it creates. This pattern is complexity coupled with specification (referring to arrangement).

It's a completely uncontroversial scientific methodology.... until its implications are considered unfavorable, in which case it goes from uncontroversial to the purported most wild and crazy idea ever conceived (I.D.).

I.D.-denialist Carl Sagan uses I.D. methodology in his two most famous endeavors: S.E.T.I. and Pale, Blue Dot.

The former, S.E.T.I., searches throughout the (searchable) cosmos looking for anything deemed an unnatural arrangement of signals (usually pulsars) which would almost certainly signify intelligence. In other words, S.E.T.I. is attempting to detect design via finding an appreciable degree of complex, specified information) throughout the stoic cosmos.

In the latter, Sagan looks at the size and location of the Earth relative to the size of the universe and deems that we occupy no special (read: specific) place in the cosmos -- in other words, he's detected a lack of design in the Earth's positioning via the absence of specification in its location amongst the universe.

What Sagan (and deGrasse) try to write off as pseudoscience (I.D.) actually follows perfectly logical, well-accepted scientific standards. The real reason they dismiss I.D. isn't because it's anti-scientific, but because they don't like its implications. The thought of the universe and/or life being designed by a Creator frightens them deeply, as it does with most atheists (or God-denialists, as I call them).

What they're doing is no different than what the fundamentalist Christian does when he rejects the age of the Earth. Rejecting science based on personal preference rather than the data. Sagan and deGrasse attempt to hide this behind strawman attacks, but those who are knowledgeable and posses critical thinking skills (such as myself) can see right through it, whereas those who lack knowledge and critical thinking (such as RidonKs and Take Your Lumps) cannot.

I've put both Carl Sagan and Neill deGrasse Tyson in their places and exposed their double-standards and hidden agendas. Kudos to me.


For those interested, the I.D.E.A. Center further swats the "God-of-the-gap" myth (lie for Darwin?) out of the ballpark...

FAQ: Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument? (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159)
You seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that, because the universe, more specifically the earth and even more specifically, the human situation on the planet seem tailored to us in a way that appears unique and not via accident that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (ie: God). Such a leap of faith is not, in any way, shape or form, scientific.

You are attempting to paint Sagan as a hypocrite due to his involvement in SETI, but I'm not seeing it. He wasn't trying to sell people on a 'religion' of other beings taking up residence in the Cosmos. SETI was formed to search for an answer to the question of whether or not we are alone in the Cosmos, but there was never a definitive statement made by Sagan or Tyson on the topic such as those made by the Intelligence Designers, who purport to own all of the answers to the secrets of the universe.

Neither Tyson nor Sagan were ever so brash. The scientific method prevents them from preaching the existence of intelligent life outside of earth, in fact... A method that people promoting ID cannot offer up.

Come on, Starface. If you want to follow intelligent design and attempt to rationalize your religion through a guise of science, I don't have a problem with it. But, you and I both know that regardless of how you try and spin ID, it (like all religious views) is largely based on faith which flies in the face of the scientific method.

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with that post.

[Mista Kool]

You seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that, because the universe, more specifically the earth and even more specifically, the human situation on the planet seem tailored to us in a way that appears unique and not via accident that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (ie: God). Such a leap of faith is not, in any way, shape or form, scientific. The Anthropic Principle states that the configuration of the universe at the moment of the big bang was such that it not only made life possible, but possibly even inevitable. This is exactly what one would expect if the universe were the product of a Creator.


You are attempting to paint Sagan as a hypocrite due to his involvement in SETI, but I'm not seeing it. He wasn't trying to sell people on a 'religion' of other beings taking up residence in the Cosmos. SETI was formed to search for an answer to the question of whether or not we are alone in the Cosmos, but there was never a definitive statement made by Sagan or Tyson on the topic such as those made by the Intelligence Designers, who purport to own all of the answers to the secrets of the universe. I'm saying Sagan's a hypocrite because he's logically inconsistent in his views. On one hand he prominently uses design detection methodology himself, yet on the other he rejects it with hostility -- almost certainly because he finds it a threat to his worldview. This shows me that Sagan isn't thinking with logic but with his emotions.


Neither Tyson nor Sagan were ever so brash. The scientific method prevents them from preaching the existence of intelligent life outside of earth, in fact... A method that people promoting ID cannot offer up. Sagan strongly believed there were perhaps up to millions of other intelligent life-forms throughout the universe. This despite the fact that his pet project, S.E.T.I., has been a total flop -- the Adam Morrison of science. On the other hand, I.D. actually has evidence to support it. I.D. has the complex, specified information that S.E.T.I. researchers can only dream of discovering.


Come on, Starface. If you want to follow intelligent design and attempt to rationalize your religion through a guise of science, I don't have a problem with it. But, you and I both know that regardless of how you try and spin ID, it (like all religious views) is largely based on faith which flies in the face of the scientific method.
There's a degree of faith, sure. There's also a degree of faith in believing that the sun will rise tomorrow or that the law of gravity will hold every second of every day. However all three of these faiths are highly reasonable faiths that are based on millenia of experience (knowledge). The sun always "rises", gravity always holds, and high levels of specified information always indicates design.

Sure, I.D. is attractive to the religious, however it requires no religious commitment nor any religious beliefs. It's more or less a resurgent form of teleology based on modern scientific findings. Teleology goes back thousands of years, from well before the beginnings of Christianity...

[quote]Socrates (c. 469-399 B.C.) argued that the adaptation of human parts to one another, such as the eyelids protecting the eyeballs, could not have been due to chance and was a sign of wise planning in the universe.

Plato (c. 427

[Take Your Lumps]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

...on the 4th dimension / tessaract

[Take Your Lumps]

Neil deGrasse Tyson on What NASA Means to America's Future (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o)

[EroticVanilla]

I just finished "Cosmos" by Sagan and I'm in the middle of "Pale Blue Dot" and have to agree Sagan > Everything. After every chapter I have to put the book down and and think about what I read.

[Mista Kool]

deGrasse Tyson's logic says that non-natural conclusions are arrived at entirely due to a lack of any known sufficient natural causes. According to this nonsensical viewpoint, those who concluded that Stone Henge was the work of intelligence would be arguing from gaps (ignorance). His mistake, and it's a mistake most Intelligent Design-denialists make, is his ignoring that non-natural causes (artificiality; design) can be very reasonably detected based, not on ignorance, but on knowledge. This knowledge is our understanding of intentional causation and the resulting pattern it creates. This pattern is complexity coupled with specification (referring to arrangement).

It's a completely uncontroversial scientific methodology.... until its implications are considered unfavorable, in which case it goes from uncontroversial to the purported most wild and crazy idea ever conceived (I.D.).

I.D.-denialist Carl Sagan uses I.D. methodology in his two most famous endeavors: S.E.T.I. and Pale, Blue Dot.

The former, S.E.T.I., searches throughout the (searchable) cosmos looking for anything deemed an unnatural arrangement of signals (usually pulsars) which would almost certainly signify intelligence. In other words, S.E.T.I. is attempting to detect design via finding an appreciable degree of complex, specified information) throughout the stoic cosmos.

In the latter, Sagan looks at the size and location of the Earth relative to the size of the universe and deems that we occupy no special (read: specific) place in the cosmos -- in other words, he's detected a lack of design in the Earth's positioning via the absence of specification in its location amongst the universe.

What Sagan (and deGrasse) try to write off as pseudoscience (I.D.) actually follows perfectly logical, well-accepted scientific standards. The real reason they dismiss I.D. isn't because it's anti-scientific, but because they don't like its implications. The thought of the universe and/or life being designed by a Creator frightens them deeply, as it does with most atheists (or God-denialists, as I call them).

What they're doing is no different than what the fundamentalist Christian does when he rejects the age of the Earth. Rejecting science based on personal preference rather than the data. Sagan and deGrasse attempt to hide this behind strawman attacks, but those who are knowledgeable and posses critical thinking skills (such as myself) can see right through it, whereas those who lack knowledge and critical thinking (such as RidonKs and Take Your Lumps) cannot.

I've put both Carl Sagan and Neill deGrasse Tyson in their places and exposed their double-standards and hidden agendas. Kudos to me.


For those interested, the I.D.E.A. Center further swats the "God-of-the-gap" myth (lie for Darwin?) out of the ballpark...

FAQ: Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument? (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159)


Phenomenal post! Sagan got served!

[bladefd]

Neil deGrasse Tyson on What NASA Means to America's Future (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o)

Very good video. I had no idea NASA was worth half a penny out of $100. Wow, I wish they got more funding for that program for space research/expeditions. Ugh, USA is falling behind too much in so many different aspects. :(


Oh and Mista Kool, you are a dumbass troll trying to argue something without thinking a moment with logic (perhaps you lack the intelligence). You are the one thinking with emotions instead of logic since you believe that creative design MUST be true and god MUST exist. No, neither creative design nor god MUST exist. As for S.E.T.I, the universe is so vast that you are trying to find 1 specific speck of dust on Mars. Sound waves can only travel a certain distance in some time-frame; the universe is too large to scan everywhere. Intelligent Design does not exist so why spend money on something that does not exist? Think with your brain not your heart because you are not making sense in ANY of your posts on these forums where you bash science nonstop. Also, stop quoting yourself, troll, and be gone.

[Mista Kool]

Very good video. I had no idea NASA was worth half a penny out of $100. Wow, I wish they got more funding for that program for space research/expeditions. Ugh, USA is falling behind too much in so many different aspects. :(


Oh and Mista Kool, you are a dumbass troll trying to argue something without thinking a moment with logic (perhaps you lack the intelligence). You are the one thinking with emotions instead of logic since you believe that creative design MUST be true and god MUST exist. No, neither creative design nor god MUST exist. As for S.E.T.I, the universe is so vast that you are trying to find 1 specific speck of dust on Mars. Sound waves can only travel a certain distance in some time-frame; the universe is too large to scan everywhere. Intelligent Design does not exist so why spend money on something that does not exist? Think with your brain not your heart because you are not making sense in ANY of your posts on these forums where you bash science nonstop. Also, stop quoting yourself, troll, and be gone.

This is the single stupidest post I've ever read on these forums.

[bladefd]

*bump*

Bumping for my man Carl Sagan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HEwO-2L4w

I just watched that again after 3 years, and boy, Sagan is still right. He is amazing and continues to inspire. I learn something new from him everytime I rewatch his videos. Man, I wish he were alive today.