Posted by Pat on October 22, 1999 at 17:20:52:
In Reply to: Look, Pat, posted by Boje on October 22, 1999 at 11:18:18:
BJ:
I think you missed the point of my post. I wasn’t joining the debate; I was trying to persuade you of its futility.
Pat:
Obviously, you haven't joined the discussion, since you've so far offered nothing relevant to the discussion.
BJ:
You are attempting to argue interpretations of publications that were not intended to be unbiased. Sagan regularly stated in interviews and self-composed articles that his involvement in the popular media had the intent of garnering political support for scientific endeavors that he favored, such as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, SETI, general university research funding, etc., (even dolphin research, for crying out loud!).
Pat: This does not, however justify the assertion that he didn't accurately portray Kepler, which is what we were talking about. Would you like to offer some evidence, or was this just sort of an undirected bleat of displeasure?
Yes, scientists do sometimes publicly discuss their interests in hopes of getting the general public to support research into problems on which they'd like to have funding. Sagan happened to have been more interesting and accessible in his presentation of science than most, and so he was heard by more people.
BJ:
That is common knowledge,(at least for people who keep up with periodical literature) and as such requires no citation,in addition to the fact that I was obviously only interjecting my opinions.
Pat:
It's considered a good thing to support your assertions with facts. You don't have to do that, of course, but it does enhance your credibility. You should try it.
BJ:
I’m not about to waste time picking through Carl Sagan’s piddling contributions to science, as though he was worthy of the effort,
Pat: BJ: Pat: BJ: Pat: BJ: Pat:
Let's see. I don't know all his work, but I do know that he demonstrated the atmosphre and surface of Venus was hellishly hot, that Mars was a cold desert, and that there were likely organic molecules on the moon, Titan. He was not an Oppenheimer or a Newton, but a very important and prolific scientist who greatly increased our knowledge of the planets. No one with even a vague understanding of science would call these accomplishments "piddling".
to fruitlessly attempt to convince you that he was biased, when he always maintained that he was.
We all have opinions. The difference between useful and useless opinions is that Sagan offered evidence for his and you don't.
You evidently consider him an icon,
It appears that you've made him some kind of icon for everything that gripes you about the world. I don't happen to agree with him on SETI, for example, and I'm skeptical about his ideas on human intelligence. Still, a scientist of his ability, able to communicate well and engagingly with nonscientists is a scarce resource. The world is better off for his having been here.
so I couldn’t hope to denigrate him in your mind.
With a content-free post? Nope. Next time get a few facts together. It would at least give you a fighting chance.