======================================================================
=                      The_Demon-Haunted_World                       =
======================================================================

                            Introduction
======================================================================
'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark' is a 1995
book by the astronomer and science communicator Carl Sagan. (Four of
the 25 chapters were written with Ann Druyan.) In it, Sagan aims to
explain the scientific method to laypeople and to encourage people to
learn critical and skeptical thinking. He explains methods to help
distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science and those
that can be considered pseudoscience. Sagan states that when new ideas
are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of
skeptical thinking and should stand up to rigorous questioning.


                               Themes
======================================================================
Sagan explains that science is not just a body of knowledge, but is a
way of thinking. Sagan shows how scientific thinking is both
imaginative and disciplined, bringing humans to an understanding of
how the universe is, rather than how they wish to perceive it. He says
that science works much better than any other system because it has a
"built-in error-correcting machine". Superstition and pseudoscience
get in the way of the ability of many laypersons to appreciate the
beauty and benefits of science. Skeptical thinking allows people to
construct, understand, reason, and recognize valid and invalid
arguments. Wherever possible, there must be independent validation of
the concepts whose truth should be proved. He states that reason and
logic would succeed once the truth were known. Conclusions emerge from
premises, and the acceptability of the premises should not be
discounted or accepted because of bias.


{{Anchor|Dragon in the garage}}Dragon in my garage
====================================================
As an example of skeptical thinking, Sagan offers a story concerning a
fire-breathing dragon who lives in his garage. When he persuades a
rational, open-minded visitor to meet the dragon, the visitor remarks
that they are unable to see the creature. Sagan replies that he
"neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon". The visitor
suggests spreading flour on the floor so that the creature's
footprints might be seen, which Sagan says is a good idea, "but this
dragon floats in the air". When the visitor considers using an
infrared camera to view the creature's invisible fire, Sagan explains
that her fire is heatless. He continues to counter every proposed
physical test with a reason why the test will not work.

Sagan concludes by asking: "Now what's the difference between an
invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no
dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no
conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean
to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my
hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

Continuing with concepts relevant to the 'dragon in my garage' story,
Sagan writes about a patient of John Mack who claimed to have scars on
her body which were from encounters with aliens. Sagan writes that if
the patient is asked what her scars look like, she is unable to show
them because, unfortunately, they are located in the private areas of
her body.


Baloney detection kit
=======================
Sagan presents a set of tools for skeptical thinking that he calls the
"baloney detection kit". Skeptical thinking consists both of
constructing a reasoned argument and recognizing a fallacious or
fraudulent one. In order to identify a fallacious argument, Sagan
suggests employing such tools as independent confirmation of facts,
debate, development of different hypotheses, quantification, the use
of Occam's razor, and the possibility of falsification. Sagan's
"baloney detection kit" also provides tools for detecting "the most
common fallacies of logic and rhetoric", such as argument from
authority and statistics of small numbers. Through these tools, Sagan
argues the benefits of a critical mind and the self-correcting nature
of science can take place.

Sagan provides nine tools as the first part of this kit.

# There must be independent confirmation of the facts given when
possible.
# Encourage debate on the evidence from all points of view.
# Realize that an argument from authority is not always reliable.
Sagan supports this by telling us that "authorities" have made
mistakes in the past and they will again in the future.
# Consider more than one hypothesis. Sagan adds to this by telling us
that we must think of the argument from all angles and think all the
ways it can be explained or disproved. The hypothesis that then still
hasn't been disproved has a much higher chance of being correct.
# Try to avoid clinging obdurately to your own hypothesis and so
become biased. Sagan tells us to compare our own hypothesis with
others to see if we can find reasons to reject our own hypothesis.
# Quantify. Sagan tells us that if whatever we are trying to explain
has numerical value or quantitative data related to it, then we'll be
much more able to compete against other hypotheses.
# If there is a chain of argument, every link in that chain must be
correct.
# The use of Occam's razor, which says to choose the hypothesis that
is simpler and requires the fewest assumptions.
# Ask if a given hypothesis can be falsified. Sagan tells us that if a
hypothesis cannot be tested or falsified then it is not worth
considering.
Sagan suggests that with the use of this "baloney detection kit" it is
easier to critically think and find the truth.


Logical fallacies
===================
There is a second part to the kit. This consists of twenty logical
fallacies that one must not commit when offering up a new claim.

# 'Ad hominem'. An arguer attacks the opposing arguer and not the
actual argument.
# Argument from authority. Someone expects another to immediately
believe that a person of authority or higher knowledge is correct.
# Argument from adverse consequences. Someone says that something must
be done a certain way or else there will be adverse consequences.
# Appeal to ignorance. One argues a claim in that whatever has not
been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
# Special pleading. An arguer responds to a deeply complex or
rhetorical question or statement by, usually, saying "oh you don't
understand how so and so works."
# Begging the question. An arguer assumes the answer and makes a claim
such as, this happened because of that, or, this needs to happen in
order for that to happen.
# Observational selection. Someone talks about how great something is
by explaining all of the positive aspects of it while purposely not
mentioning any of the negative aspects.
# Statistics of small numbers. Someone argues something by giving the
statistics in small numbers, which isn't very reliable.
# Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics. Someone misinterprets
statistics given to them.
# Fallacy of inconsistency. An arguer is very inconsistent in their
claims.
# 'Non sequitur'. This is Latin for "it doesn't follow". A claim is
made that doesn't make much sense, such as "Our nation will prevail
because God is great."
# 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'. Latin for "it happened after, so it was
caused by". An arguer claims that something happened because of a past
event when really it probably didn't.
# Meaningless question. Someone asks a question that has no real
meaning or doesn't add to the argument at all.
# The excluded middle. An arguer only considers or mentions the two
opposite extremes of the conversation and excludes the aspects in
between the two extremes.
# Short-term vs. long-term. A subset of the excluded middle, but so
important it was pulled out for special attention.
# Slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow
abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to
prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the
state prohibits…).
# Confusion of correlation and causation. The latter causes the
former.
# Straw man. Caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack. This
is also a short-term/long-term fallacy.
# Suppressed evidence, or half-truth.
# Weasel word. Talleyrand said: "An important art of politicians is to
find new names for institutions which under old names have become
odious to the public." 

Sagan provides a skeptical analysis of several examples of what he
refers to as superstition, fraud, and pseudoscience such as witches,
UFOs, ESP, and faith healing. He is critical of organized religion.

In a 2020 interview for 'Skeptical Inquirer', when Sagan's wife Ann
Druyan was asked about the origin of the phrase "baloney detection
kit", she said that


Misuse of science
===================
Sagan indicates that science can be misused. Thus, he is highly
critical of Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb", and
Teller's influence on politics, and contrasts his stance to that of
Linus Pauling and other scientists who took moral positions.

Sagan also discusses the misuse of science in representation. He
relates to the depiction of the mad scientist character in children's
TV shows and is critical of this occurrence. Sagan suggests an
addition of scientific television programs, many of which would take a
look at believed hoaxes of the past and encourage viewers to engage in
critical thinking to better represent science on popular television.


Misuse of psychiatric authority
=================================
Sagan indicates that therapists can contribute to the growth of
pseudoscience or the infusion of "false stories". He is critical of
John Mack and his support of  abduction cases, which were represented
in his patients.

Sagan writes about the story of Paul Ingram. Ingram's daughter
reported that her father had sexually abused her. He was told that
"sex offenders often repressed memories of their crimes." Ingram was
eventually able to have a foggy visualization of the claimed events,
and he suggested that perhaps "a demon might be responsible." Sagan
describes how once Ingram started remembering events, so did several
other individuals and family members. A "memory recovery" technique
was performed on Ingram, and he confessed to the crimes. A medical
examination was done on his daughter, where none of the scars she
described were actually found. Sagan writes that Ingram later tried to
plead innocence once "away from his daughters, his police colleagues,
and his pastor."


Hoaxes
========
Hoaxes have played a valuable role in the history of science by
revealing the flaws in our thinking and helping us advance our
critical thinking skills. One of Sagan's examples is the "Carlos hoax"
by James Randi that revealed flaws in reporting by news media. Carlos
was described as an ancient spirit that supposedly possessed José
Alvarez and provided Alvarez with advanced knowledge about the
universe. Many news outlets assumed this was true and reported it as
such, which spread misinformation.

Sagan also cites crop circles as hoaxes.


                        Reception and legacy
======================================================================
The book was a 'New York Times' bestseller.  The contemporary
skeptical movement considers it an important book. 'The Demon-Haunted
World' has been criticized (in 'Smithsonian' magazine and 'The New
York Times') for not incorporating certain information relevant to the
items he discusses in his book. The 'Smithsonian' article by Paul
Trachtman argues that Sagan relates issues of government choices and
declining scientific thinking skills to pseudoscience topics like
astrology and faith healing but ignores other issues that may be
causing governmental bodies and other individuals to turn away from
science. One such issue is consequences of pouring governmental money
into cancer research. Trachtman writes, "it is not because of such
beliefs that Congress now approaches the NIH budget with an ax. In
fact, billions of dollars spent on years of research in the war on
cancer have spawned growing professional bureaucracies and diminishing
medical benefits." Trachtman argues that Sagan does not include
problems like growing bureaucracies and diminishing medical benefits
as reasons for a lack of scientific attention. In his review for 'The'
'New York Times,' James Gorman also argues for an unaddressed issue in
Sagan's book, saying Sagan fails to emphasize the idea that scientists
should take a more active role in teaching science to the public,
while he does mention the failures of the education system to do so.

The review in the 'Smithsonian' magazine and a review by academic
biologist Richard Lewontin in the 'New York Review of Books' provide a
range of opinions on Sagan's attitude towards religious ideas. Per the
'New York Review' article, "when it comes to the Supreme
Extraterrestrial he is rather circumspect." The 'Smithsonian' article
suggests Sagan was very clear about his religious beliefs in the book,
for he "splits his universe in two, into science and irrationality."
The 'Smithsonian' goes on to say that Sagan's defined religious views
fall within the area of an untestable claim, a type of claim he argues
against in 'The Demon-Haunted World'.

Lewontin's review also claims that Sagan includes something in 'The
Demon-Haunted World' which he also is arguing against in that same
text. The article mentions how Sagan discusses a natural
predisposition people have towards science; but, the article says, "He
does not tell us how he used the scientific method to discover the
"embedded" human proclivity for science." Sagan heavily discusses the
importance of using the scientific method in his book, and this
article claims he strays away from his own message by not including a
description of his use of the scientific method on this topic.

A review by Lee Dembart in the 'Los Angeles Times' was positive. It
described Sagan's book as "a manifesto for clear thought", with the
main issue being the length of eight chapters. Gorman's review in 'The
New York Times' also criticised the length of the book.

The book has received a number of retrospective reviews. An article in
'The Guardian', 2012, described the book as somewhat dated, though
still insightful. Another article from 'The Verge' in 2017 noted that
a quote from the book regarding Sagan's pessimistic prediction for a
future America had gone viral on Twitter, which the article described
as "chillingly prescient". The article praised the book, stating that
Sagan "practiced the scientific skepticism and thinking that he
preached, and that's what helped him accurately analyze the trends of
his time and forecast their eventual outcomes in ours.".


License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World

You are viewing proxied material from gopherpedia.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.