Comments on: A Tribute to Carl Sagan: Popular & Pilloried http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/popular-and-pilloried/ Promoting Science and Critical Thinking Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:04:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Reid Goldsborough http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/popular-and-pilloried/#comment-4733 Reid Goldsborough Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:46:53 +0000 http://www.skeptic.com/?p=1606#comment-4733 A few additional points: Even though the National Academy of Sciences as a whole rejected Carl Sagan as a member, which gave it a black eye that it still has, it did this only because of the pettiness of some of its members. The leadership of the National Academy of Sciences, on the other hand, gave Sagan its highest award, its Public Welfare Medal. Keep in mind also that Velikovsky is far from the only "scientist" whose ideas sparked popular interest but were rejected because they weren't based on science or were based on faulty science. Finally, as balance, some so-called crackpot scientists whose ideas are initially rejected wind up overturning our notions of the universe, the world, and reality. Sagan wasn't an Einstein or Bohr, but he was more than a science educator, important though that it. He also made contributions to astrophysics's body of knowledge. A few additional points: Even though the National Academy of Sciences as a whole rejected Carl Sagan as a member, which gave it a black eye that it still has, it did this only because of the pettiness of some of its members. The leadership of the National Academy of Sciences, on the other hand, gave Sagan its highest award, its Public Welfare Medal. Keep in mind also that Velikovsky is far from the only “scientist” whose ideas sparked popular interest but were rejected because they weren’t based on science or were based on faulty science. Finally, as balance, some so-called crackpot scientists whose ideas are initially rejected wind up overturning our notions of the universe, the world, and reality. Sagan wasn’t an Einstein or Bohr, but he was more than a science educator, important though that it. He also made contributions to astrophysics’s body of knowledge.

]]> By: Reid Goldsborough http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/popular-and-pilloried/#comment-4728 Reid Goldsborough Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:36:54 +0000 http://www.skeptic.com/?p=1606#comment-4728 This comment suggesting that Carl Sagan's was denied membership in the National Academy of Sciences because of his criticism of the views of Immanuel Velikovsky is almost as crackpot as the views of Immanuel Velikovsky. One of Sagan's most insightful contributions to thinking about science among the more enlightened general public is encapsulated in his statement, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Velikovsky's extraordinary claims about close contact in ancient times of the Earth with Mars and Venus were based on the opposite, on non-science, on his poor understanding of how celestial mechanics works. That's the reason the scientific community has rejected his ideas. The National Academy of Sciences rejected Sagan as a member, on the other hand, because of petty jealousy, with there being solid evidence of such pettiness in the scientific community. This comment suggesting that Carl Sagan’s was denied membership in the National Academy of Sciences because of his criticism of the views of Immanuel Velikovsky is almost as crackpot as the views of Immanuel Velikovsky. One of Sagan’s most insightful contributions to thinking about science among the more enlightened general public is encapsulated in his statement, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Velikovsky’s extraordinary claims about close contact in ancient times of the Earth with Mars and Venus were based on the opposite, on non-science, on his poor understanding of how celestial mechanics works. That’s the reason the scientific community has rejected his ideas. The National Academy of Sciences rejected Sagan as a member, on the other hand, because of petty jealousy, with there being solid evidence of such pettiness in the scientific community.

]]> By: Theron F. http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/popular-and-pilloried/#comment-4301 Theron F. Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:44:18 +0000 http://www.skeptic.com/?p=1606#comment-4301 If for no other reason, Sagan's membership should have been rejected for his unscientific attacks on Velikovsky in the guise of scientific objectivity Sagan was less than straightforward in his critique of Velikovsky's work, and that the scientific establishment treated Velikovsky shabbily, with Sagan leading the underhanded attack. Sometimes what goes around comes around. If for no other reason, Sagan’s membership should have been rejected for his unscientific attacks on Velikovsky in the guise of scientific objectivity Sagan was less than straightforward in his critique of Velikovsky’s work, and that the scientific establishment treated Velikovsky shabbily, with Sagan leading the underhanded attack. Sometimes what goes around comes around.

]]> By: Ben R. http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/popular-and-pilloried/#comment-4169 Ben R. Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:28:43 +0000 http://www.skeptic.com/?p=1606#comment-4169 Poor Dr. Sagan. He has inspired many great, bright people. His voice is calming and eloquent. Any organization that would not support him is not worth being a member. How could any one reject a man who pushed science education? Poor Dr. Sagan.

He has inspired many great, bright people. His voice is calming and eloquent. Any organization that would not support him is not worth being a member. How could any one reject a man who pushed science education?

]]>