• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Looking back at The Demon Haunted World

TriangleMan

Graduate Poster
Joined
Mar 17, 2004
Messages
1,526
Location
Qatar
It's been 10 years since Sagan published The Demon Haunted World and reading it I've been coming across passages where I found myself asking "What would Carl have thought were he alive today?". So for a point of discussion, here is an example:
The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudo-science and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance. . . . The plain lesson is that study and learning - not just of science, but of anything - are avoidable, even undesirable.
That was 10 years ago. As I look back over the last 10 years I see no reason that anything has changed, in fact it may be getting worse. Carl didn't live to see the multitude of vapid reality shows, the increasing influence of ID, rampant circulation of nonsense via the internet, and possibly even more programs on pseudoscience than ever before. It depresses me sometimes. :(

Is it really getting worse out there? Or is it thanks to the net that I'm just exposed to it more?
 
I think it was Sagan, maybe in Contact who had a blurb about a game show called, "You bet your @$$."

... guess what I saw an ad for on the Comedy channel the other day? :boggled:
 
When I read this book a few months ago, I thought the same things -- science, learning, and critical thinking are things that are not valued in our society. I think it is getting worse, unfortunately.

BlackCat
 
I don't know if I agree. Honestly, what was the educational levels of our population 30, 50, 100 years ago? The thing that has changed is the ability to transfer information. It may seem to be getting worse but is it really? We just hear about more things, faster. Actually, with websites like this, and others, I feel there is hope. I think back to the crap my mother believed, my grandmother believed, and compare it to what I've learned in the past five years. Perhaps the progress is too slow.
 
My vote is for worse as well. It pains me to say it, but I don't see it changing soon.

I figured out long ago that the more I knew, the more I realized how little[/] I knew. I think this is happening in a very subtle manner throughout the world. Science and technology have taken tremendous strides and our learning is increasing at a very rapid rate. People are starting to realize though, that while the knowledge can fill certain voids, it opens others.

Those of us who like to think really appreciate this; it's a dynamic tapestry of discovery. It's a mystery that we all eagerly pursue for the very joy of learning. People argue that Science (intentionally capitalized) doesn't have all the answers. We know that no one in our circles would ever nor has ever made such a ridiculous claim. It's self-correcting. We hypothesize, we test, we amend. That's how it works and it leads us down the river. We don't know where the river leads, but we want to find out.

For some, however, that same lack of conclusion that keeps us going makes them uncomfortable. Many people want science to have the answers, and if no answer is provided post-haste, they retreat into the happy sandbox of empty promises and frolic in their ignorance. They don't want to know that we don't know; they don't want to know that there is no answer right now. They want someone to pat them on the head and promise that everything will be alright.

This is the role of churches, psychics, new age enthusiasts, the media,...well, you get the idea. Seeing this weakness, indeed this thirst for ignorance, lets the leeches like John Edward and Sylvia Browne thrive. The credulous look at them and say to themselves: "See? After I die, things are going to be alright. Someone can contact me and I can send my love."

We know it's the end, they don't want to know.

There is so much in our future to look forward to, so many ways to make this pale blue dot a better place. Unfortunately, I think it may get worse before it gets better. Let's persevere, shall we? They need us.
 
I seriously doubt the world is measurably dumber than it was ten years ago. And if it is, there needs to be some actual numbers bandied about rather than anecdotes.

For instance, are there really more shows on pseudoscience now? More shows than when The X-Files was on (and was popular)? I doubt it. These things come in cycles. The occult was hot back in the 60s. It was hot again with the rise of spiritualism earlier still. Exactly when was the golden age of intelligence and rationality in society in general, and educational, wholemeal good-for-you TV in particular?
 
Two steps forward one step back when you look at the longer time frame.


I think it might be useful to divide two realms. One is the scientific realm. it includes universities and much of the public/private world that is involved in scientific research and technology development. Here, great progress in science is occurring.

The other realm is the population not engaged in science and technology research. It includes the mainstream media both news and non-fiction programs as well as fiction, junk TV and entertainment stuff.

There is an organized financed movement by some in the religious world to actually discredit science in order to credit their religious beliefs.

There are some politicians who would ignore science for political gain.

And there is the increasing corporate consolidation of media that rates choices of what to air and produce by profitability, not by increasing the knowledge base of the general public. There is always a bit of the chicken and egg argument in this area as well as political motives which also influence programing and program content.

And one might also include here as influential and currently problematic as far as promoting science, the school systems. I say systems because there would be differences in different countries.

I don't think there is much question there are some very serious and very worrying developments in the political, corporate, religious and educational sectors regarding their effects on the dumbing down of large segments of the population.
 
I seriously doubt the world is measurably dumber than it was ten years ago. And if it is, there needs to be some actual numbers bandied about rather than anecdotes.

For instance, are there really more shows on pseudoscience now? More shows than when The X-Files was on (and was popular)? I doubt it. These things come in cycles. The occult was hot back in the 60s. It was hot again with the rise of spiritualism earlier still. Exactly when was the golden age of intelligence and rationality in society in general, and educational, wholemeal good-for-you TV in particular?
You may need to be looking at broader measures of change here. TV production and public consumption of pseudoscience probably hasn't changed that much. But if you add in religious organizations which are actively trying to discredit science, then I think since the 80s there has been a tremendous increase. The 80s is when the first groups started forming to promote a political agenda of Evangelical values.

Ten years ago we had a President in the US that valued science and education. Now we have one that believes in Creation (I believe Bush has said this but correct me if you have evidence).

The mainstream news media is definitely reporting on less and less issues of substance in favor of tripe however this has been growing over decades, not years.
 
I have a theory that it's not necessarily that things are getting worse. Like people who complain about crime getting worse and all that. It's that there are more and more people. Isn't this globe reaching the highest population ever? So if there are more people, there's bound to be more crime, and more kooks.

And with the way information spreads through the various media these days, they can also make a lot more noise a lot faster.


P.S. This is my first post. Hope I don't sound like a whack job.
:o
 
Welcome to the board HPMcCall! Your post points out an issue I'm grappling with, and James M highlighted: is pseudoscience etc increasing or is it that I notice it more because I'm exposed to it more through internet use, skeptic groups etc. Having lived through the last decade it makes it difficult to form an objective opinion. We now have a lot of music videos, which doesn't do much for critical thinking, but 20+ years ago we had Happy Days, the Six Million Dollar Man and Dukes of Hazzard which isn't much better. We now have John Edwards, but you don't hear much about Transcendal Meditiation like you did 10 odd years ago. ID is gaining but IChing is losing. I just don't know if science and critical thinking has been gaining or losing ground.
 
:soapbox

I'm for worse. When I was in high school, we had rigorous math training. Our geometry teacher led us through the rigors of proofs, logic, and trig. That training was invaluable to me in college. When he retired, he was replaced with someone who demonstrated analytic geometry with a list of coordinates for a connect-the-dots of Mickey Mouse.

Learning math and science can be fun, but parts of it just need to be ground out the hard way. There's no substitute for practicing logic skills. It's hard, it can be drudgery, and it can be very unfun. But that is the cost of developing a skill.

The trend is to make everything too easy. We see this in video games as well. Game used to present a challenge for the player to test himself against. Now teams of people are enlisted to remove any potential stumbling blocks so the players can breeze through the game. As a result, many games become just multimedia presentations. This is particularly true for the American game market. Many Japanese video games just don't make it over here because they're perceived to be too hard for the general US population. Some games are dumbed down for the US audience. As an example, Beatmania (a music game) requires fewer "perfect" hits to get an "AAA" rating in the US version.

I'll shut up now. This is one of the things I get really mad about since I'm a game programmer.
 
I think it might be useful to divide two realms. One is the scientific realm. it includes universities and much of the public/private world that is involved in scientific research and technology development. Here, great progress in science is occurring.

The other realm is the population not engaged in science and technology research. It includes the mainstream media both news and non-fiction programs as well as fiction, junk TV and entertainment stuff.
I agree with this. I think that things are getting worse in mainstream culture.

Some might think that it isn't a problem if mainstream culture isn't plugged into science, as long as some people still are. But I think this is what Sagan was worried about in DHW. How can the public make educated decisions about things affecting them, like stem cell research, global warming, and evolution, if they don't understand the basic concepts behind them?

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
 
I seem to recall from one of Shenkman's books on American History that even frontier society was surprisingly literate; he said it was hard to find a cabin or farmhouse that didn't have some of the classics available.
 
I seriously doubt the world is measurably dumber than it was ten years ago. And if it is, there needs to be some actual numbers bandied about rather than anecdotes.

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?
 
And there is the increasing corporate consolidation of media that rates choices of what to air and produce by profitability, not by increasing the knowledge base of the general public.
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".
 
Some might think that it isn't a problem if mainstream culture isn't plugged into science, as long as some people still are. But I think this is what Sagan was worried about in DHW. How can the public make educated decisions about things affecting them, like stem cell research, global warming, and evolution, if they don't understand the basic concepts behind them?
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.
 
I noticed it when I compared a new Fisher Price "Busy Box" to ones I played with as a child.

Maybe someone has pictures of one that's better than the one I saw--but all the one I saw had was buttons that made nifty things happen... the classic "busy box" I played with had several different ways to manipulate it.

Video games--I'd like to see today's twitch-gamers try to take on something like Stargate...
 
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.

But part of the problem is that when you measure the number of people who have heard about stem cell research you get a number much, much larger than the number of people who understand even the basic elements of stem cell research. Many USAians have formed strong opinions on the subject without having even the slightest idea of what is involved.
 
The higher an education that a person has, the less likely that they will have kids, and when they do they have less kids.
When I took economics, it was generally understood that the better off economically a family or society is, the fewer children they will have. It may or may not be related to intelligence.

BlackCat
 

Back
Top Bottom