Question for those who have read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World

[jk143]

I came across the following quotes on another website:

CSICOP [Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] is imperfect. It's hostile to every new idea... will go to absurd lengths in its knee-jerk debunking, is a vigilante organization, a New Inquisition.

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

At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

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

I have not yet read this book, but am looking forward to doing so. From hearing others talk about the book, the quotes don't strike me as being correct. Are they taken out of context or something?

Thanks in advance.

James

 

[Brown]

The quotes don't look right to me, but I don't have my copy of Dr. Sagan's book handy.

I believe Dr. Sagan did mention CSICOP, but the words "vigilante" and "Inquisition" sure don't sound like him. I believe this book is indexed, so it should be a simple matter to check the indexed references to CSICOP.

If I recall correctly, Dr. Sagan does say at one point that some paranormal claims deserve serious study. Whether they are the particular claims listed, I cannot say.

 

[Bjorn]

I have not yet read this book, but am looking forward to doing so. From hearing others talk about the book, the quotes don't strike me as being correct. Are they taken out of context or something?

Thanks in advance.

James

Somewhat out of context, yes:

However, immediately after the quote in question, Sagan writes: "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true." They "have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." He then goes on to relate how in the mid-1970s he found himself unable to sign a manifesto called "Objections to Astrology" not because he thought astrology has any validity, but "because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian."

http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter19.html

Anything else?

 

[TLN]

I came across the following quotes on another website:

Well, without a page number this is going to be a big rough.

As for context, I believe Sagan goes on to say while we should study these matters fairly, he doesn't actually expect we'll find anything. I'm looking now. (Interestingly enough, I was already doing so to collect quotes to beat Randi over the head with.)

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Don't know about the first quote. The second quote appeared in The Conscious Universe, by Dean Radin. He doesn't bother to quote the rest of the paragraph:

I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don’t), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course I could be wrong.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Holy cow, that first quote is so out of context. Here, on page 299:

I've been affiliated with it since its beginning. It's acronym, CSICOP, is pronounced "sci-cop"---as if it's an organization for scientists performing a police function. Those wounded by CSICOP's analyses sometimes make such a complaint: It's hostile to every new idea, they say, will go to absurd lengths in its knee-jerk debunking, is a vigilante organization, a New Inquisition, and so on.

CSICOP is imperfect. In certain cases such a critique is to some degree justified. But from my point of view CSICOP serves an important social function ...

Did you find that quote in Henry Bauer's review of the book?

~~ Paul

 

[TLN]

If I recall correctly, Dr. Sagan does say at one point that some paranormal claims deserve serious study. Whether they are the particular claims listed, I cannot say.

Sagan was all about this actually. He didn't like the scientific community simply waving their hand and saying "bah!" towards paranormal claims. He thought that actual study and experimentation of the claims was a good way to teach science and show that there's nothing to these claims; while simply ignoring them only allows them to grow and claim more minds and feeds the notion that scientists are "scared of the truth."

 

[jk143]

Hey thanks All! I appreciate your quick responses. I am pleased that you were able to verify my suspicions about the quotes.


James

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Jk143, you should email whoever owns the sites where those quotes were. Point out how flagrantly they are misquoting Sagan.

~~ Paul

 

[Brown]

Holy cow, that first quote is so out of context.

Man, is it ever! Dr. Sagan was summarizing the views of others who dislike the organization, but the quote is "edited" to make it appear as though they were Dr. Sagan's own personal views or views that he endorsed, when the exact opposite is true.

I have edited my own post to add: Nice job, Paul!

 

[Clancie]

Not very honest to quote Sagan and leave out that crucial part of his sentence, "they say..."!

What website was it?

 

[Sundog]

Not very honest to quote Sagan and leave out that crucial part of his sentence, "they say..."!

What website was it?

Hi Clancie!

We'll make a skeptic out of you yet.

 

[jk143]

Not very honest to quote Sagan and leave out that crucial part of his sentence, "they say..."!

What website was it?

Sorry about neglecting to reference the site. I was doing some general searching on PSI issues and found it HERE

 

[Bjorn]

Jk143, you should email whoever owns the sites where those quotes were. Point out how flagrantly they are misquoting Sagan.

~~ Paul

I tried - it can't be done.

 

[Clancie]

Bjorn,

He has an email address and seems to welcome comments. What happens when you try to correct the quote?


And, hi Sundog! Welcome back . And, remember? I am already a skeptic...I am...I am! (Well, imo, anyway. ).

 

[Bjorn]

Bjorn,

He has an email address and seems to welcome comments. What happens when you try to correct the quote?


And, hi Sundog! Welcome back . And, remember? I am already a skeptic...I am...I am! (Well, imo, anyway. ).

1. The guestbook is not working
2. Tried e-mail, but it was returned: Delivery failure

 

[epepke]

If idiot liars can do this kind of thing to a text, including reversing the order of statements and omitting ellipses, I always wonder why they don't go the whole hog?

Kate Millett, I think, started this modern form of literary criticism, for which she received a PhD from Columbia University, but at least she used ellipses when trying to make quotes from Norman Mailer seem to say the opposite of what was really said.

So why don't idiot liars produce statements like the following?

I...eat...human...brains...for...lunch.
--Carl Sagan

 

[Hellbound]

Huntsman waits excitedly for Ed to post a recipe for "Human Brain Stew"

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yup, I try emailing that idiot, too. Rejected.

Can we start quoting Sheldrake and Schwartz like that? Ooh, the things we could do: "I ... cannot ... design ... experiments."

~~ Paul

 

[Darat]

Huntsman waits excitedly for Ed to post a recipe for "Human Brain Stew"

I can categorically state I've never eaten human brain, I think.