I recently read Carl Sagan’s Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He’s a formidable writer and well known for his TV series and book, Cosmos. He is also one of the most relentless evidence-based people I’ve ever read. He didn’t want to believe, he wanted to know. Below are a series of quotes from the book that have nothing directly to do with wind energy, but have everything to do with the unquestioning acceptance of it. Read and think.
One of the great commandments of science is, “Mistrust arguments from authority.” (scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. The independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude. [page 28]
The British physicist Michael Faraday warned of the powerful temptation to seek for such evidence and appearances as are in the favour of our desires, and to disregard those which oppose them…We receive as friendly that which agrees with [us], we resist with dislike that which opposes us; whereas the very reverse is required by every dictate of common sense. [page 32]
Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires vigilance, dedication, and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us – and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, a world of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who saunters along. [page 38]
Such reports [i.e. tabloid stories of aliens] persist and proliferate because they sell. And the sell, I think, because there are so many of us who want so badly to be jolted out of our humdrum lives, to rekindle that sense of wonder we remember from our childhood, and also, for a few of the stories, to be able, really and truly, to believe – in Someone older, smarter, and wiser who is looking out for us. Faith is clearly not enough for many people. They crave hard evidence, scientific proof. They long for the scientific seal of approval, but are unwilling to put up with the rigorous standards of evidence that impart credibility to that seal. What a relief it would be: doubt reliably abolished! Then, the irksome burden of looking after ourselves would be lifted. We’re worried – and for good reason – about what it means for the human future if we have only ourselves to rely upon. [page 58]
“One unerring mark of the love of truth,” wrote John Locke in 1690, “is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built with will warrant.” [page 66]
I’ve remained fascinated long after my early enthusiasm for UFOs waned – as I understood more about that remorseless taskmaster called the scientific method: Everything hinges on the matter of evidence. On so important a question, the evidence must be airtight. The more we want it to be true, the more careful we have to be. [page 69]
For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects
- difficult things from impatience of research;
- sober things, because they narrow hope;
- the deeper things of nature, from superstition;
- the light of experience, from arrogance and pride;
- things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar.
Numberless in short are the ways, and some sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding. [Francis Bacon] [page 202]
What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and – especially important – to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that merges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true. [page 210]
Argumentation [alone] cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument. [Francis Bacon] [page 211]
Most of these figures [i.e. charismatic faith healers] are only after your money. That’s the good news. But what worries me is that a Carlos will come along with bigger fish to fry – attractive, commanding, patriotic, exuding leadership. All of us long for a competent, uncorrupt, charismatic leader. We will leap at the opportunity to support, to believe, to feel good. Most reporters, editors, and producers – swept up with the rest of us – will shy away from real skeptical scrutiny. He won’t be selling you prayers or crystals or tears. Perhaps he’ll be selling you a war, or a scapegoat, or a much more all-encompassing bundle of beliefs than Carlos’s. Whatever it is, it will be accompanied by warnings about the dangers of skepticism. [page 241]
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. [page 241]
