Looking back at The Demon Haunted World

[BlackCat]

Sign of the times...The Demon-Haunted World is out of print in the UK

Wow, it seems so. I found it at Amazon.co.uk, if you don't mind a used book.

BlackCat

 

[fuelair]

I agree with this. I think that things are getting worse in mainstream culture.

What does it say about our society, when educational channels, like Discovery, The Learning Channel, The History Channel, and the National Geographic Channel, often show wooish programming, with little or no scientific refutation, or no science programming at all?

BlackCat

And when a PBS station (here in Orlando, Florida) about two years ago followed a scientific program on the formation of the Earth with an equal time same on the creationist view made by cretinists. I immediately called to let them know not to expect any further financial support from me.

 

[Outhere]

I keep looking around wondering wotthehell happened to America since my childhood and young adult years. When I was in grade school in the 1950's the words "under God" were not in the pledge of allegiance. Though prayer was not illegal, it was not a feature of most schools' daily program. Evolution was taught in ninth grade.

Gore Vidal wrote that our leaders want a docile, unquestioning populace, and the way to achieve that is to dumb down education. People incapable of critical thinking don't make waves.

 

[HPMcCall]

I'm sorry about this, and I really don't want to get booted off this board because I think you're all amazing people and highly intelligent.

BUT....

I have issues with blaming the media for everything.

Myself, in RL I am a total skeptic. I don't believe in anything. And yet, I just sat glued to the TV for the season finale of *Lost.* I LOVE that show. And I loved the *X-Files.* And I love horror movies, from Kubrick's *The Shining*, to all the Hellraiser films. And I've read most of Stephen King, and some Koontz, and a lot of sci-fi, and not much nonfiction, because when I watch a movie or read a book, I want to be entertained.

I don't believe any of this stuff is real for cryin' out loud.

And it all started because I found a catharsis in being scared by the supernatural when I was young, but now it doesn't scare me at all (except for *The Ring* which freaked me out!). But I don't believe any of it...

And yet I watch it and am distracted from the *horrors* or my daily life (you don't wanna know).

And I play computer games (of the adventure genre a la *Myst*).

In a way, I'm really tired of people blaming entertainment media (I'm not talking about news or reality TV, I'm talking about things that are *obviously* fiction) for kids shooting up schools, or more crime, or more sexual violence, or whatever.

It's not the screenwriters' fault. I'd say it's *education*. But I don't mean public education. I mean what you learn at home. It's not up to the schools to teach religion or any *woo* stuff, mostly the facts, and I realize there's intepretation there, especially when it comes to subjects like history. But it's also up to the parents at home, and I think this is where a big problem lies. Granted, there are a lot of parents out there who believe the woo stuff and pass it on, and what hope do those kids have? Parents need to pay more attention to what their kids are doing, and that's the problem.

I'm not saying I have a solution... Just that sometimes I need to be distracted, and most of the time, it's a horror movie or book or game that works for me.

Which brings me to another point, but it's a digression: has anyone read *The DaVinci Code*? I haven't. And I won't. And I won't see the film, not even if you paid me. But has anyone read *Foucault's Pendulum*? Which is one of the best books I've ever read. And I think, the perfect book for a skeptic. I'm not giving any spoilers (and BTW, hated *The Name of the Rose*), but was hooked on *Foucault* after about 5 pages.

But I guess my main point is: it seems we're getting stupider because of media exposure, etc. But at the same time, we're getting smarter. For every new homeopath, there's someone who looked up a real diagnosis on WebMD and questioned it, or sought a real solution.

I don't think the media is bad, I think people just need to learn how to read it.

MHO.

 

[Hamradioguy]

If you think it's bad now, you should have seen it during the days of true corporate sponsorship, when a single company would often be the sole sponsor of an entire show. Not only did the sponsors control what kinds of shows to air, they frequently modified the scripts for individual episodes of those shows directly. One episode of a Chevrolet-sponsored cowboy TV show even had its script changed because one of the characters said he had to "Ford a stream".

Yep, and I recall some variety show with a backdrop of the NYC skyline. The Chrysler Building was painted out because the show's sponsor was the Ford Motor Co.! On the other hand there was some truly great TV back in the 50s and 60s: Bell Telephone Hour, Playhouse 90, Mr. Wizard, What in the World?, Ernie Kovacs, Omnibus, and more. Granted there was also Gilligan's Island, Beverly Hillbillies and Arthur Godfrey, But there sure seemed to be far more quality shows on network TV than there are now. (Mind you this was before PBS and a gazillion satellite/cable offerings.) John's Hopkins Science Review was actually a primetime network show. Can you imagine anything like that on network TV now?
We need Carl now more than ever.

 

[Quinn]

I can't find it now, but I seem to recall reading about a study not long ago which showed that in the USA, the percentage of the population that believes in various pseudoscientific and paranormal ideas has been steadily on the rise since the 1950s. If both the study and my memory are correct, that would seem to indicate that things are getting worse. I think the study was a few years old, but I certainly haven't seen anything to make me think the trend is reversing, or even slowing down.

 

[Dunstan]

I'm with HPMcCall. I'm inherently, uh ... skeptical (guess I'm in the right place), of claims that the sky is falling, society is disintegrating, people are dumber, kids don't respect their parents as much, etc. Some or all of those could be true, but the fact that pretty much every generation claims it suggests that there's some observer bias at work. I think skeptics are particularly prone to this because we like to think of ourselves as Sagan's candle in the dark, fighting back the growing forces of ignorance. The dumber society is getting, the more important we think we are and the more we can pat ourselves on the back for being smart and brave enough to resist the trend.

If you think television is dumb today, compare it to shows from the past. Even children's cartoons are more sophisticated today, in my opinion. (The ABC Family channel has been showing the old "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends" series from my childhood, and man, the plot holes were big enough to drive a truck through. By comparison, the Spidey animated series of the 90s and 00s were pretty intelligent.) With shows like House, Lost, The West Wing, and The Sopranos, I think this decade stacks up just fine.

Ditto for computer games. Here it's a little tricky because the technology has changed so much, but with games like the Civilization series I think we've got "Space Invaders" beat.

As for the specific point about the prevalance of woo, I recall plenty of nonsense being passed off on shows like "That's Incredible!" And how many times did our pal Uri Geller appear on television during the 70s?

I don't doubt that particular varieties of woo are on the upswing, but that's because every decade has its own particular brand of nonsense to some degree. I'm reading Randi's "Flim-Flam!" for the first time (bought it at TAM4 and had it autographed), and a lot of it seems really dated. I mean, really, it hardly seems worth the effort to debunk Conan Doyle's Fairy photos or the Bermuda Triangle or levitating gurus. (Yes, I know there's still a few out there who believe in the above, but I get the feeling that if Randi were writing the book today, the topics would be different.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is.

The higher an education that a person has, the less likely that they will have kids, and when they do they have less kids.

Dumb people are breeding faster.

The intelligence population is deluding.


However...

What do you rate as intelligence in this scenario?

I agree with BlackCat. I think this conclusion might be wrong. It is affluence that eventually lowers the birth rate, not intelligence. And some lower IQ scores (or would be scores for the untested) are the result of poor nutrition, poor prenatal care, lead exposure, and lack of education. So when the living conditions of the poor improve, so do intelligence measures.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The choice of what to air and produce on TV (and on the radio) has always been rated according to profitability.

If you think it's bad now, you should have seen it during the days of true corporate sponsorship, when a single company would often be the sole sponsor of an entire show. Not only did the sponsors control what kinds of shows to air, they frequently modified the scripts for individual episodes of those shows directly. One episode of a Chevrolet-sponsored cowboy TV show even had its script changed because one of the characters said he had to "Ford a stream".

I don't believe investigative journalism has ever been as poorly funded as it is today. But as for the quality of TV programming, it has always been filled with junk programs IMHO. I absolutely hate sitcoms, soap operas, and the formula drama shows with the obligatory chase scene and the inordinate number of conveniently knocked unconscious characters.

....And then there is the woman rescued in just about everyone of those formula shows as well. I still remember some old flick about a jungle woman. The pretty type with a fur bikini sort of outfit, maybe a little longer skirt in that era. I believe I counted she was rescued around 10 times in the movie despite the fact she was supposed to be living among the animals but otherwise alone in the jungle.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

The perception that the incidence of woo has increased over the previous decade or so may have a psychological explanation. As sceptics, we tend to selectively remember episodes of woo that particularly offend our sceptical faculties. At the risk of being indelicate, this boils down to a selection bias and possibly cases of subjective validation that we may be unaware, but nonetheless, guilty of. Also, as we get older, the number of such recollections increases (for isn't the ocean of human folly bottomless?), giving the impression that people around us with ill-founded beliefs are increasing in number. Moreover, being part of a sceptical community would tend to further accentuate such an impression owing to the ready exchange of information regarding such beliefs as well as their examination and refutation.

My own subjective appraisal is that the "woo-rate" (for want of a better descriptor) hasn't really increased or decreased. The content and specifics have changed in many cases, and the total number of charlatans and deluded gullibles has probably increased, but the fraction of the human total thus afflicted has, I think, remained fairly constant. Sceptics have throughout history been a minority, and our proportion may actually have increased since the dark ages, which, if true, would indicate that rationalism may be on the rise when viewed over a sufficiently long period.

'Luthon64

 

[hipparchia]

Which brings me to another point, but it's a digression: has anyone read *The DaVinci Code*? I haven't. And I won't. And I won't see the film, not even if you paid me./QUOTE]

The book is a pageturner. I read it in a day. Pass on, nothing to see here. More of a message in the Harry Potter series.

The movie would be interesting so I can get an overview of nifty European cathedrals to visit one day.

Problem with the book is it tells people what they want to hear. Even makes you feel kinda smart, as if you figured out all the puzzles. Incredibly weak characters- no one grows, no one questions their beliefs (even the main investigator already seems to believe the Magdalene hoax)...

The book's only merit is in making more appealing the message that ""Women rule"

Otherwise, I hate the way Mr. Da Vinci has become a kitch icon. There are about ten books telling you how to think like old Comrade Leonardo...what can I say, those books seem like an ego-flattering resource made so you can feel like an instant genius. Whatever happened to Leonardo's old principle- "Ostinate rigore" (obstinate rigor) in reasoning and analysis? Everyone now has ground to believe Comrade Leonardo only used his right hemisphere and lived in a world of woo. At least so far the books' "thinking instructions" go.

Now how about a Feynman code series, revolving around the number 137

 

[hipparchia]

How to think like Mr. Leonardo & other woo

Which brings me to another point, but it's a digression: has anyone read *The DaVinci Code*? I haven't. And I won't. And I won't see the film, not even if you paid me./QUOTE]

The book is a pageturner. I read it in a day. Pass on, nothing to see here. More of a message in the Harry Potter series.

The movie would be interesting so I can get an overview of nifty European cathedrals to visit one day.

Problem with the book is it tells people what they want to hear. Even makes you feel kinda smart, as if you figured out all the puzzles. Incredibly weak characters- no one grows, no one questions their beliefs (even the main investigator already seems to believe the Magdalene hoax)...

The book's only merit is in making more appealing the message that ""Women rule"

Otherwise, I hate the way Mr. Da Vinci has become a kitch icon. There are about ten books telling you how to think like old Comrade Leonardo...what can I say, those books seem like an ego-flattering resource made so you can feel like an instant genius. Whatever happened to Leonardo's old principle- "Ostinate rigore" (obstinate rigor) in reasoning and analysis? Everyone now has ground to believe Comrade Leonardo only used his right hemisphere and lived in a world of woo. At least so far the books' "thinking instructions" go.

Now how about a Feynman code series, revolving around the number 137

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed. But how many people today have heard about Stem Cell Research. Compare that with the number of people who had heard about Recombinant DNA Technology of the early 1980's. Compare that with the number of people who had heard of Mendelian genetics 100 years ago.

Not the best measures of increasing awareness of science or other educational material. The topics you mention are in the news and some of it very controversial.

Ask something more basic like what makes the seasons change or where is Iraq on a map? And I doubt many people interviewed on the street could spell Mendelian let alone tell you anything about it.

A classic video made at a Harvard University graduation illustrates what I mean (Private Universe Project, 1989). In the video, young graduates and faculty--still in their caps and gowns-- answer this question: Why is it warm in the summer and cold in the winter? Twenty-two out of 25 got the answer wrong. The typical answer was that it's warmer in the summer because the earth is closer to the sun. (The correct answer is that it's warmer then because the tilt of the earth, which remains constant as the earth orbits the sun, puts each hemisphere at an angle to receive maximum sunlight during the summer. The distance from the earth to the sun varies very little--actually, the earth is a little closer to the sun in January.)

More than half of the US population doesn't know that the earth orbits the sun or how scientists figured out that it does. Almost no one can explain what the phrase "orbits the sun" even means. Worse still, few can distinguish between an evidence-based explanation of how the physical world works and an opinion-based one.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After more than three years of combat and nearly 2,400 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, nearly two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 24 still cannot find Iraq on a map, a study released Tuesday showed.

The study found that less than six months after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, 33 percent could not point out Louisiana on a U.S. map.

The same pseudoscience stories are around now though and are just repeated over and over. I can't believe how many Bermuda Triangle programs I've seen and none add much more information since the book I read as a kid, This Baffling World, 1968 I loved those mysteries at the time. Now they are just boring.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I have issues with blaming the media for everything. ...

You are missing the point, at least the point I made anyway. I'm not blaming the media, (except the lack of news on TV), or games, or entertainment. I think the media is a reflection of what people want. Nor do I think a person who found the show, Lost necessarily dumb. Entertainment choices are not always an indication of a person's scientific knowledge. Sometimes they do reflect the person's interests, but other times they are just entertainment and nothing more.

And the news is out there if you look for it. I just think the fact more people know who Natalie Holloway and Laci Peterson are than know who Dick Cheney is may not be so good. The mainstream news contributes to that immensely.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

One more thing I thought of reading this, while belief in pseudoscience may not have increased over the years (unless we see the data Quinn mentioned), I would have hoped such beliefs would have decreased over the years. So staying even is still a loss.

 

[JamesM]

The higher an education that a person has, the less likely that they will have kids, and when they do they have less kids.

Dumb people are breeding faster.

Presumably, then, we can extrapolate backwards to a time when everyone was super intelligent. When was that?

 

[tkingdoll]

Wow, it seems so. I found it at Amazon.co.uk, if you don't mind a used book.

BlackCat

I bought my first copy used from a bookstore, now I just order them from the States if I want copies for friends. It's very sad though - I'd like to see it in school libraries and such.

 

[Ladewig]

But I guess my main point is: it seems we're getting stupider because of media exposure, etc. But at the same time, we're getting smarter. For every new homeopath, there's someone who looked up a real diagnosis on WebMD and questioned it, or sought a real solution.

I

Do you mean that for every new homeopathic client, there is someone who looked up a real diagnosis? I ask because it is not useful to compare providers* in one field to patients in another field.

Also it is hard to tell which side is winning when many of the people looking up real diagnosis (through doctors or online resources) are also using homeopathic remedies "just in case."

__________
* Yes, I know homeopaths are not actual health care providers.

 

[Ladewig]

Let's look at the numbers.

1991 God created people "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." - 46% of USAians (end of fifth paragraph) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

2004 God created people "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." - 45% of USAians http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=14107&pg=1

So there does not seem to be evidence that skeptics are advancing on the important fronts. Given that the current number for the percentage of Americans who believe that both evolution and creationism should be taught is at 65%, I don't see much hope.

 

[TriangleMan]

Perhaps from a media standpoint it is difficult to judge whether "lowest common denomintor" programming is more pervasive now, especially given the wider array of channels we have access to, but attitudes towards education may be another matter. Sagan was concerned that learning is being considered an "undesirable" activity by more and more Americans but it would depend on what we consider "learning". Having expert knowledge of all the NBA player stats, whilst not caring a bit about science or politics, could still be considered learning despite the information learned not being something that others might consider important. If someone doesn't have a great knowledge of science I still don't think they are automatically dumb.

What Sagan may have been more concerned with is whether people are thinking. Are people thinking or analyzing less? Is there less involvement in, say, the political process or other things that require the average citizen to think about the status of things around them?