Parallelism Between Education And Science In Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World

Postmodernists argue that because modern science was developed by a group of people which were ensconced in a European culture, they carried their subjective biases and prejudices into the scientific inquiry. By this logic, science does not seem like an objective method through which to investigate the world, but rather an enterprise that serve to adhere to a particular socio-political agenda. To elaborate, they believe that science, in its contemporary state, does not produce objective facts, but rather it offers a limited manner through which to cultivate the world. Specifically, a white-masculine-elite view of the world. This means that new types of epistemologies—such as the feminist epistemology—should be introduced to paint the full picture of reality. Thus, science seems to offer a one-dimensional narrative that needs the perspectives of so-called marginalized, oppressed groups to be complete. This line of reasoning is intrinsically flawed for a multitude of reasons. First

For most people of the modern age, a clear distinction exists between the truth as professed by religious belief, and the truth as professed by scientific observation. While there are many people who are able to hold scientific as well as religious views, they tend to hold one or the other as being supreme. Therefore, a religious person may ascribe themselves to certain scientific theories, but they will always fall back on their religious teachings when they seek the ultimate truth, and vice versa for a person with a strong trust in the sciences. For most of the early history of humans, religion and science mingled freely with one another, and at times even lent evidence to support each other as being true. However, this all changed

"water-tight compartment" system which, even at the present time, is frequently extolled or considered possible."(Boutroux, 406) Two powerful forces that coexist yet each of them deny one another, but yet they define one another. The perfect paradox within the world of both, two opposites that attract and one cannot exist without the other. Most people fail to understand that; they fail to realize that without science there is no religion and without religion there is no science. On one hand, science studies and examines every form of life and thing of known existence. On the other hand, religion studies the pure feeling and knowledge of a higher being, the omnipresent god who created all that is known. And on the hand that no one likes to see, you have science that fills in the gaps of religion, and religion that fills in the gaps of science. By examining a literature work titled "The star" By Arthur C. Clarke, a work based off science and religion in itself. I will show you the juxtaposition of science and religion.

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

A final point of admiration comes from the fact that Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson does not mind opening the discussion regarding controversial topics. Because of his personality, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson comfortably expresses a unique brand of individualism. In recent days, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson began to raise a controversial subject regarding the science literacy of the United States. Dr. Tyson feels the nation might be turning into a nation of unbelievers in science, perhaps accepting suspicious science or science based on superstition as fact, not trusting tested and proven scientific knowledge (Business insider.com). Dr. Tyson states” The consequences of that is that you breed a generation of people who do not know what science is nor how

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

To begin with, Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark clearly displays Sagan’s stance on religion and science. In the excerpt Sagan’s his stance is shown by combining both religion and science in saying, "When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years

In the TED talk, “The Pursuit of Ignorance,” Stuart Firestein makes the argument that there is this great misconception in the way that we study science. He describes the way we view the process of science today as, "a very well-ordered mechanism for understanding the world, for gaining facts, for gaining data." (Firestein 0:11 and 18:23) Although Firestein provides a convincing argument that modern science processes rely too much on facts instead of ignorance and new discovery, he fails to provide strong evidence that it should instead focus solely on the pursuit of ignorance.

In both premodern and modern times, priests and religious figures have felt threatened by the growing field of science. What they failed to realize is that science and religion don’t answer the same questions. Society needs reason, a logical and practical understanding of the world, to answer the question “hows” of life. Yet, it also needs tradition, faith in religion or other core belief system, to answer the “whys.” As shown in Maimonides’ Intro to Mishnah Sanhedrin Chapter 10, “Sacks, the Great Partnership,” and the debate between Rabbi David Wolpe and Christopher Hitchens, reason provides explanations for the processes that allow the world to work the way it does, while tradition provides meaning in life and an understanding of purpose.

Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are portrayed as crusaders of science, fighting any type of religion that stands in their way in the movie "The Unbelievers." By promoting a scientific worldview, they believe they are promoting the one thing that makes us inherently human– curiosity. They believe that "there's no one whose views aren't subject to question", saying that religion is no exception to this idea of challenging beliefs. Dawkins and Krauss also emphasized that people should be able to discuss religion, looking at it much more critically than allowed in the past. I think that these ideas of questioning and curiously examining religion are two things we did throughout our class, whether it was discussing our thoughts in class, comparing different interpretations of biblical text, or reading articles that showed more alternative views to the typical Christian fable.

“Part of science is to be taken as significant and expressible within E, and the rest as non-significant and falling outside E. The E portion is subject to attributions of truth and falsehood, belief and evidence, whereas the non-E portion is not. Yet the fictionalist cannot spurn the latter wholly, since he is prepared to admit its functional ‘legitimacy’ and, hence, its interest for the scientist. At most, he can deny it to be either true or false.” (Scheffler 185).

He asserts that the scientific method of thinking is both disciplined and imaginative, and it helps people understand how the earth is, instead of how they want to view it. Sagan states that science operates much better compared to all other systems since it has a "built-in-error-correcting machine. " Pseudoscience and superstition get in the way of most of the general public's capacity to appreciate the benefits and beauty of science. Skeptical thinking enables persons to construct, understand, reason and acknowledge invalid and valid

Sagan argues that science is an ever changing way of thinking, a way of discovering truths and challenging what is already established. Science is in no way a fixed body of knowledge, but helps to explain why things are the way that they are. He challenges Nietzsche thinking by stating, “Our perceptions may be distorted…because of the limitations of our sense organs, which, of course, perceive directly but a small fraction of the phenomena of the world” (Sagan 1). Here, Sagan explain that we cannot solely rely on our senses and need laws in order to understand exactly how to live. Nietzsche would argue that no laws are needed and the human being can survive on common sense alone. Sagan then explained the generalizations of science, and their importance, using the analogy of a grain of salt. He describes the intricacies of a single grain of salt by stating, “In that grain of salt there are about 106 sodium and chlorine atoms.” He then articulates that, “the total number of things knowable by the brain is no more than 1014, one hundred trillion” (Sagan 2). “We cannot on this level understand a grain of salt, much less the universe” (Sagan 3). Sagan then used this analogy to state how humans find generalizations to make it easier to store a lot of information. He also states that we use outside sources, such as computers and books to know and understand more about the

Legends, Lore, and, Lies A Skeptic’s stance Introduction by Carl Sagan. Sagan opens the chapter by exploring what skepticism is and why it’s important to have and maintain a certain level of it. Meaning that you shouldn’t be afraid or scared to challenge someone else’s information nor should you just listen and follow everything that you hear. You shouldn’t be gullible or susceptible and fall for just anything that someone says; you should try to remember in the back of your mind that what works for some may not work for all. He also explains why in his opinion skepticism can be helpful as well as dangerous. Helpful meaning that situations that were classified situations that are labeled as being a crisis that could have been easily been

Science “aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by the liberation of the human mind” (Wilson, 7). Both religion and science seek to explain the unknown. Instead of surrendering reasoning with the traditional religion, a scientific approach one takes full authority over it. Being an empiricist, Wilson takes favors the scientific approach to the question: “why are things the way they are?” This question can pose two meanings: How did this happen, and what is the purpose. Traditional religion answers this question with stories, many of which are impossible to prove or disprove, making them arguments of ignorance. These explanations entail the adherent surrender reasoning and put faith in the resolution. According to Wilson these are always wrong (Wilson, 49). Science is the most effective way to learn about the natural world. Religion is merely speculation.