The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (Carl Sagan, 1997)

[madali]

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (Carl Sagan, 1997)

The problem I see with a lot of non-fiction is that the author has something to say and wants to make a book out of it, but it is not necessarily suitable for a book length. So, what they do is just drag it out, repeat everything a hundred times, tell us everything everyone knows, and make unnecessary and pointless references to past works.

I’ll tell you the main theme behind Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”, and it is, science is good, superstition is bad. Fine, we all agree with that, now try to expand that into 500 pages. What do you get? Same thing, but really long.

I had just read his “Pale Blue Dot” and loved it, so I was looking forward to reading more from him, and was disappointed with this effort. In “Pale Blue Dot”, he seemed full of life and passion, here he just seems like a crabby old man, complaining about the state of education these days.

Here is my tip to know when an author has very little material to fill a book. An author wants to mention a few public opinion samples, and does this by letters to the editor of papers or letters to himself. If an author has enough material, he would hardly rely on this, and when he needs to, he uses a few samples. Sagan does this several times (letters to him, feedback from students on a project, etc), and each one will have 15-20 samples.


My review will now be also unnecessarily long, and if I would take my own advise, I should just mention this guy’s 1-star review on amazon.com, and be done with it,
“I liked what Sagan had to say. Science rules - no doubt. But...he needed an editor badly for this book. Everything he had to say he said in the first 50 pages.”

But I’m going to be also self-indulgent, and write much more!

Sagan spends a bit of time trying to show people’s gullibility by talking about absurd stories that are published in the…World Weekly News. To those that don’t know, this tabloid is very niche, the people who read it seem to for the most part know the stories are not true and just enjoy it for entertainment purposes, and the very few who might actually believe will believe anything. What I am interested in is how people give in to pseudoscience in a more general way, not a few people here and there who believe World Weekly News. Carl Sagan acts smug about it, writing about stories after stories, and how there is no proof for it.

Here are some choice headline from World Weekly News wikipedia entry, “HILLIRARY CLINTON ADOPTS ALIEN BABY” . Or go to their website, and read these headlines on the main page, “TRUCKER ABDUCTED – RETURNS WITH ALIEN PROSTATE” and “KILLER BABIES ARE ON THE LOSE! What to Watch Out For”. Do you really need a scientist like Sagan telling you not to believe everything in that tabloid? If people believe stuff like that, they will hardly be discouraged by Sagan’s work.

In other parts of the book, Sagan writes about how to make science more prominent in our society. After writing how kids in school don’t aim to be smart, because they will be considered nerds, and cool kids are discouraged not to study, he has a brilliant idea. “Schools could easily give much more recognition and rewards to kids who are outstanding in science and math. Why don’t they? Why not special jackets with school letters?” Now, I’m not Captain Sociology, but doesn’t that seem like the sort of things which will make smart people even LESS inclined to study? It’s almost like Sagan is calling for Nerd Jackets, to make people get bullied easier.

This is the fundamental issue with Sagan in a lot of parts of the problem. He has no real understanding of the problems that exist, and in all fairness, usually he doesn’t even give solution, he just asks questions, wondering why certain ideas exist and what can be done. At best, he won’t give any solutions, at worst, he gives wrong ones. What’s the point of the book then?

In another part of the book, he focuses on the media’s role, and how they damage science. One of the examples he uses is “The X Files”, and how they are harmful. Again, I will remind readers that I am not Captain Sociology, but I will again make another general statement which I am sure is more correct than Sagan’s. Series like “The X Files” or “Star Trek” (which he also mentions as a bad influence) HELP people get into science. Jocks don’t sit and watch “The X Files”. Kids who watch “The X Files” don’t all go, “I’ll grow up to be a basketball player”. The shows, while inaccurate, does push people more into the realm of science. It does peak their interest.

Sagan shows his basic misunderstanding of reaching to people by giving this solution to improving “The X Files”,
“Much closer to reality, as well as a much great public service, would be a series in which paranormal claims systematically investigated and every case is found to be explicable in prosaic terms. The dramatic tension would be in uncovering how misapprehension and hoax could generate apparently genuine paranormal phenomena. Perhaps one of the investigators would always be disappointed, hoping that next time an unambiguously paranormal case will survive skeptical scrutiny.” I’m at the edge of my seat! It sounds like Sagan wanted to turn “The X Files” into “Scooby Doo” where at the end of the episode, Agent Mulder and Agent Scully would find that the person responsible was a guy in a mask, and he’d say, “I would have gotten away if it weren’t for you meddling kids!”

A little bit later, his gripe about “Star Trek” is, “The idea that Mr Spock could be cross between a human being and a life form independently revolved on the planet Vulcan is genetically far less probable than a successful cross of a man and an artichoke.” I’m sure Sagan is a superb guy, but that kind of wants me to spill milkshake all over his face and call him a nerd.

And if you are a TV producer and looking for TV show ideas, here is one idea from Carl Sagan, “Why in all America is there no TV drama that has its hero someone devoted to figuring out how the Universe works?”

One final note on his media complaints. He claims that biopics are never made on scientists, but “by contrast, think of how difficult it is to grow up in America without television teaching you about, say, the life and times of Davy Crockett or Billy the Kid or Al Capone.” I don’t live in America, but here is my test if you live there, ask people who they know more about Albert Einstein or any of those? Is the percentage of people who heard of Newton lower than Crockett? I strongly doubt it.

But I do not want to say the book is all wrong. For the most part, the book is mostly unnecessary. I do not know who the point will be useful to? Sure, it will be liked by people who like science and want someone to pat them on their back, but useful to them? Doubtful.

Here is my advise. Read scientific books, rather than books on science.

2/5

[madali]

I feel smart for writing all that on a book, outside of a college or school requirment!

[X.]

I like your attack on Sagan for dissing sci-fi shows like "X-Files" and, most acrimoniously, "Star Trek," a show (at least the "TNG" version) that has actually shaped my interest in science, progress and -- yes -- atheism. Even as an ardent fan of the TNG mythology, I seemed to have disregarded Capt. Picard and crews merry adventures in favor of their ruminations of said themes. Sagan should trust viewers, and the power of metaphor and subtext in popular media.

But I understand where he's coming from (the trivialization of the elegance and power of science), and actually think his idea of a superhero trying to understand how the universe works can be made into a film...by me! (And starring me and Angelina Jolie having uninterrupted hot sex, as we experience moments of interstitial euphoria, aided by all manner of toys, lubrication and mirrors.)

P.S. All these books will make your head explode! (Honestly, I am envious of you. Keep up the reading. I'm counting on you to outsmart us all in a couple of months.)

[madali]

A scientific movie WOULD be interesting, but not if the plot line is just someone trying to understand the universe. One solution can be a biopic, which I will say, there exists an amazing range of available subjects. I’m currently reading “The Short History of Nearly Everything”, and it is so unexpected to see how interesting and eccentric some scientists are. And I do not mean in terms of their theories, but their personal life, their approach, and their almost deranged obsession. Plus, there is also lots of drama, such as two scientists starting out as friends, but turning into bitter enemies. For example, two geologists started out as friends digging for dinosaur bones, but they fell out, and hated each other, and their hatred was so childish (and fun!) that their digging teams would throw stones at each other. That would make a great movie!

But I think one thing any director can do, is put in an extra effort by consulting scientists, to at least make sure that small things that are not fundamental to the plot can at least be accurate. And when you make any movie, at least do this! I don’t see why more directors don’t consult others, not just scientists, but historians, IT people, etc.

[fizz]

Mad, I finished 'A short history of nearly everything' early this year. It is a fantastic book that is as informative as it is entertaining. Post your thoughts here when you're done with it.

I've given up on books about science because, lets face it, they don't always make for good reading nor do scientists usually know how to write very well (people like Sagan are an exception). I tried to read, in my new found taste for intellectualism during my days at university, a lot of books by scientists, but I could never finish them. One such book was the intriguingly titled The quark and the jaguar, but half way through, i realised the book was nothing beyond anecdotes about scientists and the enclosed communities they live in. I gave up and never looked back.

[fizz]

You make an interesting point about why there aren't any movies on the lives of scientists. How true. The last good film I remember, which many disliked, was Kinsey. Directors and screenwriters are predominantly artists who find inspiration in telling the tales and adversaries conquered by other artists like them, which is why each year we get the obligatory biopic about rock stars.

[madali]

I didnt like "Kinsey", but remember "Beautiful Mind" was about a mathematician, but it was very popular among the masses.

Not tat it had much math.

[fizz]

True, but thats still nothing compared to the proportion of movies about musicians/filmmakers in the last few years - Ray, Walk the line, Dreamgirls (not entirely a biopic, but just as lame), Control, Aviator, Life and death of Peter Sellers, Delovely, Hollywoodland, I'm not there...boy the list goes on!