Carl Sagan: Underappreciated Genius

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.

[URL="http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html"]btw[/URL]

[QUOTE=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.

[URL="http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html"]btw[/URL][/QUOTE]
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:

[QUOTE=RidonKs]that came off like you had specific examples. care to share, or were you in fact just speaking generally?[/QUOTE]

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.

On a lighter note...

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

bump

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

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps]bump

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

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

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

bump

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

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: [url]www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBkaP7EY5Us[/url]
part 2: [url]www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPRknQKWiUY[/url]

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

[QUOTE]Here is his last interview about 6-7 months before he passed away in 1996.[/QUOTE]
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.

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.

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

Have a look...

[url]http://www.symphonyofscience.com/[/url]

[IMG]http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4316/1264995199769.jpg[/IMG]

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

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

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

[quote=RidonKs]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.[/quote]
deGrasse Tyson's logic says that non-natural conclusions are arrived at [B]entirely[/B] 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 [I]very reasonably[/I] detected based, not on ignorance, but on [B]knowledge[/B]. This knowledge is our understanding of intentional causation and the resulting pattern it creates. This pattern is [B]complexity coupled with specification[/B] (referring to [B]arrangement[/B]).

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 [SIZE=5][B]Carl Sagan uses I.D. methodology[/B][/SIZE] in his two most famous endeavors: [I]S.E.T.I.[/I] and [I]Pale, Blue Dot[/I].

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, [I]S.E.T.I.[/I] is [B]attempting to detect design[/B] 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 [B]detected a lack of design[/B] 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]I.D.E.A. Center[/I] further swats the "God-of-the-gap" myth (lie for Darwin?) out of the ballpark...

[I][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][B][URL="http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159"]FAQ: Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?[/URL][/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/I]

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

[B]The Long Answer:[/B]

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

[QUOTE=Mista Kool]deGrasse Tyson's logic says that non-natural conclusions are arrived at [B]entirely[/B] 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 [I]very reasonably[/I] detected based, not on ignorance, but on [B]knowledge[/B]. This knowledge is our understanding of intentional causation and the resulting pattern it creates. This pattern is [B]complexity coupled with specification[/B] (referring to [B]arrangement[/B]).

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 [SIZE=5][B]Carl Sagan uses I.D. methodology[/B][/SIZE] in his two most famous endeavors: [I]S.E.T.I.[/I] and [I]Pale, Blue Dot[/I].

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, [I]S.E.T.I.[/I] is [B]attempting to detect design[/B] 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 [B]detected a lack of design[/B] 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]I.D.E.A. Center[/I] further swats the "God-of-the-gap" myth (lie for Darwin?) out of the ballpark...

[I][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][B][URL="http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159"]FAQ: Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?[/URL][/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
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[I] must be [/I]the work of an intelligent designer (ie: God). Such a leap of faith [I]is not[/I], 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 [I]faith[/I] which flies in the face of the scientific method.

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

[quote=RedBlackAttack]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[I] must be [/I]the work of an intelligent designer (ie: God). Such a leap of faith [I]is not[/I], in any way, shape or form, scientific.[/quote] The [I]Anthropic Principle[/I] 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.

[quote=RedBlackAttack] 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.[/quote] 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.

[quote=RedBlackAttack]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.[/quote] 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, [I]S.E.T.I.[/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 [I]S.E.T.I.[/I] researchers can only dream of discovering.

[quote=RedBlackAttack]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 [I]faith[/I] which flies in the face of the scientific method.[/quote]
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][B]Socrates[/B] (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.

[B]Plato[/B] (c. 427